Many measures can be applied when assessing the performance of Generals. One could focus on strategic or tactical competence. Maybe success is another. What about race or sexual orientation? My judgment was based on competence conflated with a 21st century concept of human rights. The blog Rating the General of WW2 elicited a number of comments of alternative ratings. This was one from an old hiking friend Malcolm. After presenting Malcolm’s view, I will critique it.
Main picture: Based upon victory as being the measure of greatness, Eisenhower was the greatest general of WW2
Malcolm’s view
The War was won by the Allies so one of our guys has to be TOP. Winner takes all you know.
The non-German sector’s affinity for Rommel, even though as you say may have been one of the best if not the best General, is also flavoured by the fact that he was clearly not a Nazi as he is suspected of having been executed by the Nazis.
As a tank General was he better than Monty? I don’t know.
My late father, who was in North Africa in the REME (Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers), would probably have routed for Monty. He inspired and motivated his troops, something that was lacking, apparently in his predecessors.
Lt General Bernard Montgomery, GOC 8th Army, standing in front of his personal Grant tank, 5 November 1942.
He did once tell me that without the constant supply of Sherman tanks from the States all would probably have been lost. As a man, who had to recover, repair and put tanks back into service, he had a very high regard for the Sherman Tank.
Rommel versus Montgomery: Rommel was nimble and spontaneous whereas Montgomery was ponderous and considered
The final beginnings of the European Campaign were in France, Russia and Italy. The First to Berlin were the Russians. They must take the trophy, Zhukov.
The Japanese Campaign was a different scenario. Claw back of Island after Island, then the BOMB. MacArthur was the supreme commander so he must get the Credit.
[Shortened]
Douglas MacArthur
My riposte
In short and without sounding sanctimonious, I consider Malcolm’s measurement criteria to be flawed. Aside from the fact it is a gross oversimplification, it fails to advance any other cogent reasons other than Victory in support of his contention.
The Boer War
In support of my contrary view, take the Boer War as an elegant example. In terms of the “victory” logic, the best general of the war should have been British. If so, who?
- Lieutenant General Sir William Forbes Gatacre: Commanded the 3rd Division of the 1st Army Corps during the Second Boer War; suffered a large defeat at the Battle of Stormberg.
- Field Marshal Lord Herbert Kitchener: Commander of British troops in the Second Boer War;
- Field Marshal Paul Sanford Methuen, 3rd Baron Methuen: Commanded the 1st Division during the Second Boer War.
- Major-General Sir Redvers Henry Buller: Commanded the 1st Army Corps in the Second Boer War.
- Field Marshal Lord Roberts: Long time British army officer in India and senior commander in the Second Afghan War; commander at one point in the Second Boer War.
Field Marshal Lord Herbert Kitchener
In my opinion, none of these Generals deserve the honour.
Would not a Boer Commander like De la Ray be vastly more deserving of that accolade?
WW2 – In the West
If we commence with the best Commander in the West, using Malcolm’s criteria, Eisenhower should receive the honours. Even though Patton was clearly more deserving of the honour, he does not fit the criterion as he was subordinate to Eisenhower.
General George S. Patton
Yet like all most American Generals during WW2, I would classify Eisenhower as no more than good. Apart from Patton who like Churchill believed that they would achieve greatness in battle, the remainder of the American Generals could also be classified as being no more than above mediocre but no more.
If so, how were the Allies able to achieve victory in the west based upon Malcolm’s yardstick?
It certainly was not superior generalship but rather the mundane aspect of supplies and equipment. Arguably the Germans possessed the best tank of the war in the Tiger 1 but production amounted to no more than 1354 whereas the production of the venerable Sherman ultimately totalled in excess of 50 000.
Tiger1 #131 at the Bovington Tank Museum in the UK
On the seas facing Normandy, the Germans operated a few puny e-boats whereas the Allies had 6039 vessels from battleships, cruisers and all the menagerie of ships downwards at anchor. In the air war, it was no different. The 100 or so German aircraft were easily outnumbered by the 11 590 Allied planes.
Even with the most mediocre of general, the weight of numbers would ultimately have meant the destruction of the German forces. In spite of being hopelessly outnumbered, due to brilliant German generalship, the Allies were contained within the coastal strip for two months. In the process the Allied forces sustained an inordinate number of casualties. I am unable to ascertain the exact losses on both sides but the as regards tanks it was on 2:1 basis and aircraft 1:1. The greatest German losses are skewed by the fact that a disproportionate portion of the German losses occurred when Hitler refused to issue the order to withdraw until it was too late. The retreat became a massacre at Falaise with British Typhoons having a field day.
For reasons of overwhelming material superiority alone, I would discount most Allied Generals. If it had to be an Allied General, according to Blaine it would have to be Montgomery. The reason advanced for this viewpoint is his clarity of thought as regards the military situation, its dynamics and the geographical considerations. Furthermore he was never intimidated by his superiors. Above all else, he possessed the backbone to speak truth to power.
WW2 – In the East
Following Malcolm’s reasoning Zhukov deserves the accolade as the best General in the East. The self-same argument about material superiority can be advanced in Russia. Even from the first day of the Operation Barbarossa, the Germans were at a disadvantage. How they managed to hold sway that summer was due to their strategic brilliance combined with Stalin’s idiotic decisions regarding launching of attacks and even preventing withdrawals when the situation was clearly catastrophic. Stalin’s decisions were to cost the Russians dearly that summer.
Operation Barbarossa
By the end of 1942 Russian tank production had already reached 1000 per month whereas German tank production languished at less than 500. The crunch came during the Battle of Kursk when Russian numerical superiority eclipsed German strategic and tactical brilliance through sheer weight of numbers.
Hitler further degraded the Wehrmacht by embarking upon ill-advised forays such as sending troops to Tunisia despite being a lost cause and deviating from the essence of the Blitzkrieg concept. In this theatre of war, the tactically brilliant Von Manstein must wear the laurels.
Just like Stalin’s interference in the direction of the war in 1941 causing an inordinate number of Russian deaths, so did Hitler’s interference in 1944 & 1945 result in catastrophic German losses.
Furthermore Zhukov adopted the approach of the “mass charge” instead of being more subtle by launching his attacks against weak German defensive positions. His attack on Berlin falls into this category. Instead of surrounding Berlin and starving the Germans out, Zhukov launched a massive bombardment of the Seelow Heights on the western bank of the Oder River. Then his soldiers stormed across. As he had done many times before, there was no subtlety or finesse; just brute force.
Marshal Zhukov (right) in the company of Joseph Stalin, on the reviewing stand at the Victory Parade on Red Square in Moscow
Even General Gotthard Heinrici who replaced Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler as Commander-in-Chief of Army Group Vistula and who was one of the best defensive tacticians in the German army, could be classed as being superior to Zhukov in his ability.
After the war, Eisenhower was quizzed by a journalist why the Allies never attempted to capture Berlin instead of allowing the Russians to do so. His immediate response was that he had saved at least 50 000 American lives.
WW2 – In the Pacific
In the Pacific, there are two American Generals in contention to receive this accolade: McArthur and Chester Nimitz. Nimitz took the route through the smaller northern islands & atolls whereas McArthur advanced on the southern route through the larger islands.
Chester Nimitz – equally as competent as McArthur but without the showmanship and bravado
Neither in my opinion deserves this recognition. The only tactic that they both employed was to island hop. Using overwhelming numerical superiority, first by bombarding the island extensively and then by sending in an oversized Marine contingent, they would decimate the Japanese defences.
What strategy was that? Instead they should have left most islands to rot on the vine by taking huge leaps. Furthermore it is certainly not wrong to suggest that McArthur was foolhardy to attempt to recapture the Philippines. Not only did this result in huge American casualties but the total and utter destruction of its capital Manila together with an avoidably large civilian casualty toll.
Admiral Yamamoto
After the killing of Admiral Yamamoto in an ambush in 1942, I cannot think of any Japanese Generals who could be considered. Their strategy was to delay the advance of the Americans by sacrificing the lives of all the Japanese troops under their command. When that tactic proved to be futile, they added the Kamikazes into the equation.
Tanks and armour tactics
Few would quibble with the contention that the Germans possessed some of the best tanks of WW2. The Tiger 1 might not have been numerous, but its 88mm main gun was the most formidable tank killer of WW2. As such it put the fear of god into Allied tank men. All things considered however due to its relative immobility, high fuel consumption when stocks were critically scarce and its over-engineered specifications it came to define everything that was wrong with Germany’s equipment strategy.
The workhorse of the Allied armoured forces, the Sherman. This is the British variant, the Firefly in Namur, 1944
Furthermore, to use an overused modern word, the German armour generals were the superstars of their era. Their Blitzkrieg philosophy, – or to give it its modern equivalent name – the combined arms approach, was ironically first – and one may add eventually – used by Montgomery at the Battle of El-Alamein in October 1942. Montgomery was given 6 weeks to instil this new philosophy into his troops. There was something profoundly moving about Monty informing the Air force Chief – Middle East that they could no longer operate as an independent unit. With Alexander’s blessing he broke the news to Arthur Coningham and ordered that he move his HQ right next to his.
Manstein with General der Panzertruppe Erich Brandenberger, one of his divisional commanders, in June 1941
My verdict is unanimous. The measure of greatness cannot be based upon whether one wins or not. There are many other factors such as numerical superiority, lack of funding or even an incompetent boss which prevents the realisation of one’s potential. Even an excellent General such as Rommel was unable to get the Italian forces under his command to behave like real soldiers. So finally even one’s country of birth will determine whether one can win the coveted prize of best General.