# Germany's Greatest General



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2008)

Who was Germany's Greatest General during WWII? I've listed a few below and in my opinion I would take Rommel. But was there some one better? For an insight of their careers check this site:

Generals from Germany


----------



## wilbur1 (Mar 12, 2008)

Rommel


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2008)

I voted Rommel for obvious reasons.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2008)

Thanks for adding the others. Didn't know exactly who to add!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2008)

I only added a few more that were prominant people. I am not saying they are the best or not. Some were even tried and put to death in Nurnberg.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2008)

No prob - agreed.

I picked Rommel because he seemed to have a very good grasp of not only tank tactics but warfare in general. And most of his downfalls - if you will - were caused by lack of supplies or cooperation with his superiors. From North Africa to Normandy he fought a battle against his boss on the right course of action which in the end he was justified.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 12, 2008)

Rommel.

TO


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 12, 2008)

Rommel here too, with Guderian right under him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2008)

Actually those were my top 3 - Rommel, Guderian and Kesselring. The first two are obvious but Kesselring I thought fought a good fight in Italy.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 12, 2008)

I went for Rommel. I don't know enough about Kesselring or Guderian to have an opinion on them.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 12, 2008)

Yes he did Njaco. Actually, I'd completely agree with your top three......in that order.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 12, 2008)

Rommel, then Guderian with Kesselring in third.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 12, 2008)

Definitely Rommel and second Guderian as for third I don't have one...


----------



## timshatz (Mar 12, 2008)

Going with Manstien. Nothing against Rommel, but he famous in the west where Manstien was more of an eastern general. Did a great job too. 

Second, I would go with Guderian. In the same run as other Tank generals. Wrote the book on it.


----------



## renrich (Mar 12, 2008)

Rommel, Guderian and Smiling Albert. Albert did a good job in Italy, especially for a LW general.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2008)

ok, so I gotta come up with a better poll and not something so obvious!


----------



## Hollywood (Mar 12, 2008)

Karl Doenitz is worth mentioning eh?


----------



## Freebird (Mar 12, 2008)

Hollywood said:


> Karl Doenitz is worth mentioning eh?



He was an Admiral...

But considering that Kesselring was only a Luftwaffe guy he did pretty damn good with defensive ground troops.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2008)

I would accept Doenitz as he was head of his department. Wasn't Raeder better?


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 13, 2008)

Rommel, definitely. He was a true general, his head wasn't addled with ideaologies and he wasn't hellbent on persecuting those who didn't fit in.
Guderian was also a great general, he led the way in tank warfare theory and practice in my view

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dcasuta (Mar 14, 2008)

Guderian I think ... he was the mastermind. Rommel was the best in the 2nd wave of new generals. I voted the mentor. 
Third is not a heavy choise...Manstein. 
Smiling Albert - verry verry good general - no.4. 
von Rundstedt - no.5 (great great granddaddy...)


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 14, 2008)

Finally I'm not the only Romanian on this forum ...welcome dcasuta!Sorry guys for posting off topic here but I had to .


----------



## The Basket (Mar 14, 2008)

Kesselring and Manstein.

Kesselring was an army officer before he became Luftwaffe.

Doenitz was an Admiral and then Grand Admiral and finally head of state. Then war criminal, prisoner and Finally West German citizen. So he was the top ranking officer of the war!

Rommel was not the best as he was too reckless. Kesselring was the most rounded and gifted.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2008)

The Basket said:


> Rommel was not the best as he was too reckless.



How was Rommel too reckless?


----------



## plan_D (Mar 14, 2008)

Heinz Guderian would be my obvious rank #1 because he created the mobile warfare that Rommel is so famous for. Guderian also commanded the victory in Poland and northern France; Rommel was under Guderian during _Fall Gelb_ and it was Guderian who kept ordering all his units to keep pushing forward - often putting himself at risk in all his operations. Guderian also drove the Wehrmachts panzers to the gates of Moscow through Smolensk. Rommels fame comes from North Africa where armoured warfare can be practised in perfect conditions; there is always an open flank. Guderian fought tougher opponents and commanded larger forces. 

However, I'm not going to put Guderian as the greatest. Instead I choose General der Panzertruppe H.Balck as the greatest German general of World War II and Guderian would agree. Guderian described Balck as the most gifted armour commander he had ever met. 

Balck started the war as commander of Schutzen Regiment.1 (Rifle Regiment)/1.Panzer Division. He fought in the Battle of France and it was he who led the vanguard of German forces across the Meuse at Sedan. Upon crossing the river Meuse on the 13th of May; Balck decided to enlarge the bridgehead himself without support from anti-tank guns, armour or artillery. On the night of 13/14th May Balck force marched his exhausted troops six miles south to the town of Cheméry which was occupied without a fight. The morning brought a French armoured counter-attack but the enlargement of the bridgehead by Balck made the battlefield open; the French were repulsed as the 1st Panzer brigade arrived with armour and anti-tank guns. A plus note for Guderian is that he was up at the front during the battle and was able to be consulted by Balck in person. 

Balck changed commands to Panzer Regiment.3/2.Panzer Division for the Battle of Greece. In this command Balck led the left battle group (Panzer Regiment.3; Schutzen Regiment.304; II.Motorcycle Battalion plus supporting engineer company) of 2.Panzer Division during the Battle of Mount Olympus. 

On the 15th April Balcks' forces were pinned down by 21.Battalion/2nd New Zealand Division and supporting artillery. The New Zealanders had not been given anti-tank guns because the terrain was considered impassable to armour. Balck ordered his armour to open fire upon the New Zealanders positions while his II.Motorcycle Battalion made a wide flanking move on the 21.Battalions' left, on foot. The II.Battalion/Schutzen Regiment.304 followed with a larger flanking movement on to the sides of Mt. Olympus; the terrain was difficult even for foot soldiers and was left largely unguarded by the New Zealanders. Balck left only his engineers to guard his armour and artillery while his infantry made the night march around the New Zealand positions. 

On the morning of 16th April the New Zealanders began to withdraw. The II.Motorcycle Battalion had struck at their left while the II.Battalion/Schutzen Regiment.304 had move to the rear. Upon seeing the withdrawal, Balck ordered an advance by his armour regardless of terrain. The pursuit did not last long as the infantry was exhausted and the terrain did become hazardous for armour. 

By noon on the 17th of April Balck had reached the Tempe Gorge; a sharp sided gorge with the river Pinios running through the centre. On the northern bank of the river was a railway and on the southern bank was a road leading to Larissa which was the target of 2nd Panzer Division. The Australian 16.Brigade had the western entrance of Tempe Gorge covered and were the last line of defence before Larissa. 

Balck sent his armour down the railway at a slow pace towards Larissa. The movement was soon halted by the destruction of a tunnel by the Commonwealth forces. Luckily for Balck there was a split in the Pinios river with an island in the middle which was close enough for his armour to reach under their own power. Balck risked the crossing with one tank which made it; this was followed by two more successfully. The crossing was dangerous and took anywhere between thirty minutes to a hour for each tank but Balck pressed on. The first three tanks moved down the road and chased off an Australian demolition party. Through the night of 17/18th April Balcks Schutzen Regiment.304 repaired the road under heavy artillery bombardment. 

Some tanks were lost in the crossing but enough got over with four artillery pieces towed by tractors; no wheeled vehicles could make it. On the afternoon of 18th April Balck assembled a panzer battalion and schutzen battalion for the attack on the Australian positions. 

On the afternoon of the 18th Balck broke through the western entrance to the gorge and reached open country. The Australian 16.Brigade under pressure from the German mountain troops on Mt.Olympus and the right flank of 2.Panzer Division began to withdraw during the night of the 18th. Balck and his armour was the deciding factor as he raced over 'impassable' terrain to capture Larissa on the 19th of April. 

A captured British message read: _" The German Panzer Regiment 3 knows no going difficulties and negociates terrain which was regarded as absolutely safe against armour."_

The official New Zealand pamphlet _The Other Side of the Hill_ says of Balcks operations: _"Seldom in war were tanks forced through such difficult country, or foot soldiers, already with over 500 kilometres marching behind them, pushed forward so rapidly under such punishing conditions; it was a record of which any soldier should be proud"_

There's a lot more to Balcks career and I will continue at a later date...


----------



## plan_D (Mar 14, 2008)

Balck was then made commander of 2.Panzer Brigade before being returned to staff duties in the Inspectorate of Armoured Forces OKH in July 1941. 

In May 1942 Balck was placed in command of 11.Panzer Division under 48th Panzer Corps in Ukraine and southern Russia. The 11.Panzer Division became pivotal in the survival of the German forces in southern Russia in the winter of 1942/1943 when 6th Army was surrounded in Stalingrad. 

On 6th December Balck arrived Nizhna Chirskaya on the river Chir to prepare for a crossing of the river Don to link up with Hoths' 4th Panzer Army and aid them in relieving Stalingrad. Covering the line of the Chir was 336th Infantry Division which held a line running from Nizhna Chirskaya to Surovikino. Also in 48th Panzer Corps was the Luftwaffe Field Division of limited ability. 

Balck was never able to aid in the relief of Stalingrad; on the 7th December the Russian 1st Armoured Corps crossed the Chir and broke through 336th Divisions left flank and head for "State Farm 79" which was situated deep behind the German defensive line on the river and dangerously close to 336th Divisions HQ. 

The 11.Panzer Division (Panzer Regiment.15; Panzer Grenadier Regiment.111; Panzer Grenadier Regiment.110) was still moving toward the front from Rostov when they were ordered to restore the situation at "State Farm 79". Panzer Regiment.15 met a the Russian armoured force in the afternoon of the 7th and stalled their advance. The German command knew that the Soviets could not remain in the area and Balck was ordered to remove them. 
Balck set up his HQ in Verchne Solonovski (south-east of "State Farm 79") next to that of the 336th Division to enable close co-operation. Balck was asked by the 336th command to make a frontal assault on the Russian positions without delay. Balck made his position clear; he wanted to destroy the enemy, not push them away, a frontal assault was out of the question. 

Balck planned to encircle the Russians by sending Panzer Regiment.15 with Panzer Grenadier Regiment.111 in support to the west and north while Panzer Grenadier Regiment.110 performed a holding attack from the south-west. Balck ordered his anti-aircraft guns and engineers to hold the south of the Russian positions to prevent them from breaking out. The 336th Divisions' artillery provided support for the north-east sector. 

The 11.Panzer Division formed up on the night of 7th and attacked at dawn on the 8th. The attack came just as the Russians began to advance on the 336th rear. Panzer Regiment.15 caught a motorised infantry column by surprise that was coming from the north and completely destroyed it. The panzers then continued to the rear of "State Farm 79" and surrounded the 1st Armoured Corps. By the end of the day fifty-three Soviet tanks were left burning with little loss to the 11.Panzer Division. The Soviet attack had been blunted.

I will continue with the Chir River battles later...


----------



## timshatz (Mar 14, 2008)

Plan D, your answer reminds me of the instructions from taking math tests in High school, "Show all work".

Good answer. You passed!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 14, 2008)

Njaco said:


> ok, so I gotta come up with a better poll and not something so obvious!



Okay, how about the worst German general of WWII? I know this one's a toughie, but I nominate Field Marshall Keitel, the ultimate example of a Nazi toady.


----------



## merlin (Mar 14, 2008)

Is there a 'Western Front' bias here concerning Rommel?

To my mind, there is only one choice and he stands head shoulders above the rest!! That man is Fritz Erich Lewinski - who, more commonly known by his adopted family name of von Manstein.

To quote Richard Brett-Smith book entitled 'Hitler's Generals'
"Of all the candidates for greatness, to my mind one man stands out, and that is Field-marshal Erich von Manstein. He would have been acceptable to every general on the Eastern Front as commander-in-chief with total responsibility, and he was well liked and thought of by the men who served under him. Further, von Manstein was that rara avis, a man who combined the genuine intellual equipment and precision of the goood staff officer with the authority, decisiveness and imaginative flair of the good field commander. He proved himself to the hilt in both capacities; and if he made some mistakes, they were, few and not irretrievable ones. Von Manstein was the greatest German general of the war, and probably the greatest of any participating nation"

My second would be Guderian, my third would be Kesselring, next would be Colonel-Genral Erich Hoepner - as Brett-Smith says "thought by some to be even better than Guderian or Hoth"!
Perhaps, Rommel could be fourth before Hoth - in view of his longer service.


----------



## magnocain (Mar 14, 2008)

I have readf a book where Rommel ( yes, the Rommel ) was the 7th _*worst*_ genral of WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2008)

I would like to see the explanation for that.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 14, 2008)

Russian author. 

Would Sepp Dietrich fit in here anywhere? Did he reach General status?


----------



## magnocain (Mar 15, 2008)

Ok. This is taken fromThe History Buff's Guide to World War II by Thomas R. Flangel. 
P.S. sorry for the blurry words. Basically it says Rommel was all reputation.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 15, 2008)

Very interesting Magnocain. I wonder if this text is regarded as fact or opinion.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 16, 2008)

Good question....my top three in no particular order...Heinz Guderian, Erwin Rommel, SS-Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner of the 5th SS Division Wiking...


----------



## Njaco (Mar 16, 2008)

Wow, forgot about Steiner. Did some courageous things around Berlin in '45.

Mere opinion on Rommel. Love the quotes:

"_his maverick, reckless exploits were *lethally *out of place..."_

"_Eventually beaten back, Rommel at least captured its vital port of Tobruk..."_

"_Though he won ground and frightened the Commenwealth..."_

Ummm, sounds like he was somewhat effective..and these gems:

"_He managed, however, to waste fuel and equipment earmarked for the impending invasion of Russia.."_

"_Rommel's desert adventures compromised Axis *strength *in the Mediterranean...."_

Those two passages seem to contradict each other. Nowhere is any blame placed on Hitler for the bungling moves in NA.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Very interesting Magnocain. I wonder if this text is regarded as fact or opinion.



Nothing but opinion I believe. Just like you can make anyone look like gold, you can drag anyone through the mud with the right words.


----------



## Udet (Mar 16, 2008)

I´d dislike the notion of having General Walter Model included on the "other" poll option for he was one of the most skilled and brilliant commanders of the entire war.

His feats and deeds are several but one that in my view would deserve special mention is Zhukov´s "Operation Mars" launched in late November, 1942 in the Rzhev sector, near Moscow, where Model was in command of the 9th Army.

Their intention was to encircle the German forces in the sector and to annihilate them thus erasing the risks of further German thrusts towards Moscow.

Model´s forces in the area completely gutted and devastated the overwhelming soviet forces committed in the sector. After some initial gains, the soviet forces were promptly halted, several of their large units would be encircled and annihilated and all ground the Germans had lost after the initial blow was retaken.

Model turned what started as a defensive battle into an offensive thrust causing the soviets the type of losses in both men and material they were so accustomed to swallow.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 16, 2008)

Sorry about that Udet. I was trying to remember all the Generals and those few came to mind. But I wouldn't argue he wasn't a good general. Should be on the list. But I'll still stick to my top three.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 17, 2008)

Rommel was a wonderful propoganda tool and became a legendary figure.

But if you read comments form General Halder or Keeselring...they had quite a different opinion.

Hitler had no real interest in Africa and it was only Rommels drive which made it happen. He never had the resources to fight the battles he wanted but fought them anyway.


----------



## A4K (Mar 17, 2008)

He once had his troops enter a town with strong British ties, pass through and exit it, then reconverge with the incoming troops, and enter it again, then re-exit and once again enter...the result being the same troops entered three times, and British spies duly reported back a force three times larger than it actually was.
That's one of the reasons he has my vote as best German General.

(The Schwarze Kapelle even wanted him to be 'stand in' chancellor during their final planned coupe, only failing due to telephone communications not being cut with the SS headquarters, and resulting in the assassination of a number of key figures of the German General staff, including Rommel (via cyanide). Read 'bodyguard of Lies' for the full story.)


----------



## plan_D (Mar 18, 2008)

I'll continue ... until you're all convinced  

9th Dec. - the Luftwaffe Field Division took up positions on the 336th Divisions left flank (which had been broken by the Russian 1st Armoured Corps). The two infantry units held the line of the R.Chir from Nizhna Chirskaya to Oblivskaya, 11.Panzer Division was the mobile reserve. 

Balck was called upon time and time again to restore the front on the river Chir; during these actions he continually showed speed and skill which is attributed only to the famous German generals. 

On 11th Dec. Balck received his first message of a breakthrough; Soviet forces had broken through Lissinski and Nizhna Kalinovski. These two breakthroughs were 22km apart as the crow flies. Balck acted quickly and force marched the 11.Panzer Division to Lissinski to arrive there at dawn on 12th Dec. The Soviet breakthrough was quickly destroyed upon the arrival of the German armour. Balck did not split his forces and hit with everything at hand to ensure success. 
Without stopping for rest Balck ordered the 11.Panzer Division north-west to the breakthrough at Nizhna Kalinovski. After a march of 15 miles after the morning battle the 11.Panzer Division struck at the Russian bridgehead and compressed it. 

On the morning of 13th Dec. Balck was met with a crisis during his assault on the bridgehead. While pushing for the final attack the 11.Panzer Division was struck on its right flank by a large Soviet force. One battalion was surrounded and Balck quickly ordered his force to disengage the bridgehead and turn against the new attack. The encircled battalion was freed and the new assault was blunted. Balck and his division then had to rest which unfortunately left the bridgehead intact. Balck had pushed his men and machines to march by night and fight by day for eight days straight - an amazing achievement for Balck and most certainly the men fighting under him. 

The 48th Panzer Corps was ordered to join Hoth's 4th Panzer Army in the relief attempt on Stalingrad on the 10th Dec. This led to Balck and his 11.Panzer Division being pulled from the line on the 15th Dec. and moving to Nizhna Chirskaya to force a crossing of the Don there. The Luftwaffe Field Division were left to cover the Soviets at Nizhna Kalinovski. The plan was for Balck and his 11.Panzer Division to cross the Don on the 17th and cover the 4th Panzer Army's left flank ... but this was not to be.

And I'll continue later...


----------



## Flightcommander (Mar 21, 2008)

i voted for rommel, cuz i tried to read a 3000 autobiography of his....  
it bored me to tears.


----------



## Flightcommander (Mar 21, 2008)

is pretty good and great general tho


----------



## Njaco (Mar 21, 2008)

Reading 3000 autobiographies of the same person would probably bore me too!


----------



## plan_D (Mar 23, 2008)

And I'm back... !

The line was quiet on the 16th Dec. as the Russian 5th Tank Army made no attempts on the German line. It was believed that they could have crossed the Don to oppose Hoth but nothing was certain as German air recon had been grounded for several days. 

On the 17th as Balck was preparing his assault across the Don the position of the Russian 5th Tank Army was made clear. The Soviet army smashed through the 336th Divisions front 6 miles north of 11.Panzer Divisions position at Nizhna Chirskaya. 11.Panzer Division was turned north and quickly checked the Soviet attack. 

On the 18th Balck continued his assault on the Russian bridgehead at Chirskaya and was on the brink of destroying it before the news came of a breakout at the Nizhna Kalinovski bridgehead 12 miles north-west of Balcks position. The Luftwaffe Field Division had been broken through by a motorised corps on a wide front. Balck was ordered to retrieve the situation against his wishes to destroy the Russians at Chirskaya first. Balck quickly ordered a night march toward the new Soviet breakthrough.

At 0500 on the 19th Balck threw his plan into action; Panzer Grenadier Regiment.110 moved to a blocking position infront the Soviet advance, Panzer Regiment.15 attacked the Soviets eastern flank while Panzer Grenadier Regiment.111 moved further to the Soviet rear on Panzer Regiment.15s right flank acting as flank cover and reserve. 
At first light Panzer Regiment.15 saw Russian armour deployed in battle formation and moving south. From their concealed line of advance the twenty-five panzers left in the regiment moved in behind the Soviet armour and quickly knocked out forty-two tanks. The Soviets only realised that the wave behind them was German and not Russian when it was too late. Panzer Regiment.15 took over the dominating heights of the area and discovered another Soviet armoured unit moving in a similar fashion to the first. The panzers repeated their previous performance for a total kill count of sixty-five without a single loss. 
That evening the Russian 3.Mechanized Brigade made an attack on the left flank of 11.Panzer Division and overran 1.Battalion/Panzer Grenadier Regiment.110. Panzer Regiment.15 was called in and quickly recovered the position. The Soviet attack was blunted.

On the 20th Balck continued in his assault to throw the Soviets back across the Chir. In the evening the Soviets counter-attacked on Panzer Greandier Regiment.11s front and smashed into their rear. Panzer Regiment.15 retrieved the situation and knocked out ten Russian tanks. 

I will continue the final part of the Chir battles later...


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Mar 24, 2008)

I chose Rommel, no reasons need mentioning, Guderian, for introducing Blitzkrieg, and von Rundstet


----------



## plan_D (Mar 25, 2008)

Conclusion of the Chir Battles -

On the 21st Balck ordered his units to halt any offensive action and regroup. In the face of the continuous Soviet onslaught Balck recognised that his troops needed rest. At 0200 hours on the 21st the Soviets attacked once again under the bright moonlight. The German troops were in the motion of regrouping, both the Panzer Grenadier Regiments (110 111) were broken through and being overrun. Panzer Regiment.15 quickly counter-attacked and largely recovered the position. Balck ordered Motorcycle Battalion 61 to the junction between Panzer Grenadier Regiment.110 and Panzer Grenadier Regiment.111 where the main Soviet thrust was aimed. When the day broke the situation became clear; Balck had won another defensive victory but this one was at a grave cost in casualties. 

On the 22nd, Balck was order ninety miles west with 11.Panzer Division to Tatsinkaya in order to save Rostov. The Soviets had smashed through the Italian Eighth Army on the 48th Panzer Corps left flank; this led to the disaster at Stalingrad. 

Only a few days later would Balcks' 11.Panzer Division be saving Rostov from a Guards Armoured Corps bearing down upon it. 

_"...Balck came tearing down on the enemy with the whole weight of his armour in accordance with the old maxim: No stinting, but stunning."_

_"...General Balck, a born leader of armour."_ - Maj. Gen. F. W. Von Mellenthin


----------



## Njaco (Mar 25, 2008)

Fantastic stuff, Plan!


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2008)

My opinion is that the greatest German military leaders are those not so prominent. One that comes to mind is Oberst Stahel, who held together a critical section of the Chir front, after the encirclement of 6th Army, for more than a month, with only a few batteries of flak troops, and other rear area auxiliaries. Both Richthoven and Fiebig, commanders of Luftflotte 4 and fliegerKorps Viii respectively, described his activities as "superb". contact was lost with his forces after December 2, with his commanders fearing him dead or captured. in fact Stahel was not dead or captured. Along with significant elements of his combat group, he had been surrounded, and was resisting strong attacks from Soviet forces many times his strength, and with troops that most would consider superior to his own. it is evident from historical accounts, that this force was held together by the superior leadership displayed by Stahel. Regrouping his forces into a single cohesive command, he proceeded to hack his way out of this "mini-Stalingrad", and emerged about a week after disappearing having destroyed several enemy battalians in the process. 

There are many others in the German armed forces who deserve greater credit than they generally receive. IMO it was the german "middle management" that deserves the bulk of the credit for the amazing successes of the German armed forces, rather than flashier, and more well known army and front commanders. Rommel, incidentally, began as one of those "middlemanagers", and achieved his greatest successes whilst more closely aligned with that Genre, rather than as a high ranking Field Marshal, where his leadership and management skils were less accessible and more prone to interference from the high command


----------



## Freebird (May 18, 2008)

Udet said:


> I´d dislike the notion of having General Walter Model included on the "other" poll option for he was one of the most skilled and brilliant commanders of the entire war.





Lucky13 said:


> Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner





plan_D said:


> I choose General der Panzertruppe H.Balck as the greatest German general of World War II and Guderian would agree. Guderian described Balck as the most gifted armour commander.



Great points, Udet, Lucky, PlanD.

I would agree that Model, Steiner, Balck should be on the list.

Perhaps Student as well.


----------



## Njaco (May 18, 2008)

Sorry if they weren't listed, Udet, Lucky, et al. I'm not that familair with ground generals after the Luftwaffe ones. But its great that you brought them up!


----------



## Freebird (May 18, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Sorry if they weren't listed, Udet, Lucky, et al. I'm not that familair with ground generals after the Luftwaffe ones. But its great that you brought them up!




That's Ok Njaco, not many people do. Alot of the "reputation" of the Generals is hype ego to begin with. It was also easier for Rommel to look like a genius when he was up against the faulty organization equipment of the British armoured forces. The Commonwealth really had no answer for the lethal 88's of the Germans in 1941-1942


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 22, 2008)

magnocain said:


> Ok. This is taken fromThe History Buff's Guide to World War II by Thomas R. Flangel.
> P.S. sorry for the blurry words. Basically it says Rommel was all reputation.


He can't even spell his name correctly. Read the 1,5 pages and its full of crap, seriously. Just another stupid author trying to get attention by "re-writing" history. 

I'm still surprised Rommel is #1, v. Manstein was imo by far the better overall. Rommel was a great tactician, but he had a lack of sense for logistics.


----------



## starling (May 22, 2008)

rommel was a corps commander at best.just look at his hasty rush to the wire,and especially medenine.10-15-21st panzer divs stopped dead.monty knocked him about big time,so did auchinleck.yours,lee.


----------



## Njaco (May 22, 2008)

Was it Rommel at Medenine or von Arnim?


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jun 22, 2008)

I have used these criteria for making my list: 
1. How many different types of warfare did the different generals excell at?
2. What where their odds against the enemy they faced?
3. Did they contribute with anything "new". 

Mannstein is without any doubt My number 1. Rommel was a great commander/tactitian at division and korps level. But no more than that. He handled a very "simple" front and did so excellently. In France (1940) he made a good show and handled his ghost division to perfection (although he owed much of his breakthrough to "stealing" engineer units from the neighbouring 5 panzer division). Anyways: This is my top 5 list and the reasons for my choices:

1. Field Marshall Erich Von Mannstein - Excelled at every type of combat under any conditions. His greatest feats where probably the recapture of Kharkov '43, the capture of Sevastopol '42 and finally his mobile defense in the east after "Zitadelle" in '43/'44. This final feat (and his final command) is by many military experts regarded as the most well executed battles in modern history.

2. General Heinz Guderian - The father of modern Armoured warfare. Without him Germany with its meagre industry and raw materials probably never would have reached anywhere near the goals that they did reach. He is the most important german general but not the best.

3. Field Marshall Walther Model - The Führers "fireman". Model was a solid offensive commander but it was in defense that he excelled. Said to never have lost a battle... But i would say that the northern flank of Zitadelle was a defeat...

4. Field Marshall Erwin Rommel - one of the most colourfull commanders of the war. A superb tactician but arguably a weak strategist. His feats in the desserts of North Africa and France where truly great. Enjoyed great respect among the allies aswell due to his chivalrous attitude and skill on the battlefield.

5. General Kurt Student - Father of the Airborne division. Perhaps not a brilliant commander but his invention of the airborne attack had a huge effect on the war.

Others that should be mentioned and their main posts:
Eduard Dietl: Commander of the Mountain troops in the North
Ringel: Commander of Mountain Troops in Norway and Greece
Von Leeb: Early Commander of AG North and also held a high postion in France
Paul Hauser: One of the few SS-Generals to come from the Wehrmacht - and as such was arguably the most skilled of them.


----------



## donkeyking (Jun 22, 2008)

I voted Guderian and Manstein. if had Model choice, I would like to vote him


----------



## Bigxiko (Jun 22, 2008)

Rommel
not only for his genius,
but also because in the end he realized that he was on the wrong side of the war


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2008)

starling said:


> rommel was a corps commander at best.just look at his hasty rush to the wire,and especially medenine.10-15-21st panzer divs stopped dead.monty knocked him about big time,so did auchinleck.yours,lee.



Rommel was a superb tactician. 

He was never "knocked down big time" by anyone. He was defeated for a number of reasons, many out of his control.

I see you have not done your research like parisifal and njaco have told you to do.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

Comparing Allie and German commanders is in many ways like comparing apples to oranges. Whereas the German commanders were trained to exploit success, look for weaknesses, and seize opportunities, they were not that strong on combined operations, or working toward a strategic goal. they tended to to see, and deal, only with that issue that was immediately in front of them. Rommels last offensive in NA is a classic example of this.

This tended to make them appear as poor strategists.

By comparison, the Allied generalls were trained to stick to the operational plan much more rigidly, and to consider the higher needs of the theatre as a whole. They were, in other words, much more "strategically" oriented. But this emphasis came at the cost of tactical prowess. This was because the Allied commanders tended to be much less flexible than their Axis opponents.

However, the Allies also learned to co-ordinate theatre assets much more effectively than the Axis. It was quite common for an Allied general to command the land, air and sea assets within his theatre of operations. Examples of this might be Eisenhower, Mountbatten, and Macarthur. This happened to a far lesser extent in the axis camp


----------



## starling (Jun 22, 2008)

from an allied point of view,paulus must rate highly.his inability to try and an attempted breakout toward manstein,led to the capture of german 6th army.that was a large bag of prisoners.
the best german general imho was manstein,his recapture of kharkov was masterful.yours,starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

Paulus isnt quite what i had in mind. he was not able to manage his LW assets, and was more a hitlerian lackey than a free thinker.

Manstein is a very good choice, and quite out of the ordinary as far as the german generals are concerned. He was able to grasp the wider needs of his front very well, had a good operational insight, and was a good "manager " to boot.


----------



## HerzAs (Jun 23, 2008)

Strategist:
Erich von Manstein

Tactician:
Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2008)

von Manstein to me


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2008)

> Comparing Allie and German commanders is in many ways like comparing apples to oranges. Whereas the German commanders were trained to exploit success, look for weaknesses, and seize opportunities, they were not that strong on combined operations, or working toward a strategic goal. they tended to to see, and deal, only with that issue that was immediately in front of them. Rommels last offensive in NA is a classic example of this.



Regarding this, heres a question. I remember reading once (can't remember the name of the book or anything so its only on memory) that German officers didn't have that much flexibilty of thought and command whereas the Allies felt confident even down to platoon leaders to adapt to situations presented before them. That there was a rigidness of command within German troops that was a failing. Any truth?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

*Regarding this, heres a question. I remember reading once (can't remember the name of the book or anything so its only on memory) that German officers didn't have that much flexibilty of thought and command whereas the Allies felt confident even down to platoon leaders to adapt to situations presented before them. That there was a rigidness of command within German troops that was a failing. Any truth?*

I would have to dissent on that one. German officers were actually noted for their flexibility. They were highly adaptable, and trained to be opportunistic, to reinfoce those parts of the front where they were achieving success.

The problem with German military thinking was that they could not think holistically as well as the allies. The allies could seem to work to an agreed set of objectives and employ a range of fiffernt meium and unit types, for example air and naval resources, and to plan what we now call comined operations, to a far higher degree of efficiency than the germans. An example of german limitations might be found in their planning for sea lion, or in Rommels decision to push into Egypt after tobruk. They often failed to see the fores, for the trees that were immediately in front of them.

However, as commanders in a land battle, they were generally much better than eithe the Allies or the Russians. The opponents of the germans were not ever really able to undertake a campaign of manouver against the Germans, it was always firepower, and broad front strategy that won their battles (although Zhukov did come up with his innovative variation of that, in the great 1944 offensives, where the russinas, once they won the initiative would run up and down the front, with successive offensives, where massive local superioirities were abale to be achievede.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jun 26, 2008)

parsifal said:


> *Regarding this, heres a question. I remember reading once (can't remember the name of the book or anything so its only on memory) that German officers didn't have that much flexibilty of thought and command whereas the Allies felt confident even down to platoon leaders to adapt to situations presented before them. That there was a rigidness of command within German troops that was a failing. Any truth?*
> 
> I would have to dissent on that one. German officers were actually noted for their flexibility. They were highly adaptable, and trained to be opportunistic, to reinfoce those parts of the front where they were achieving success.
> 
> ...




I'll have to disagree - The faults you mention are correct - but not caused by the military doctrine taught to german officers. Rather by their strategic leadership. More notably Hitler who ensured that after France the war was without any "concrete" goals.

The germans where to my knowledge the first to introduce true "combined arms operations". While in other armies different arms were squabbling between themselves in the interwar years (and early in the war) - the german arms were much more trained for interarm cooperation. For example - All Panzer divisions had luftwaffe liason officers able to call in close airsupport - something not mastered by the allies until later in the war. Operation Weserübung was a near perfect combined arms (Paras, Marine, land and airpower) operation which at the time of its execution could not have been pulled of by any other armies in the world. 

Another example of the incredible level of tactical leadership taught to officers in germany is actually the finnish army. At the time of the Winter War virtually all of its higher ranking officers were veterans of the 27th Royal Prussian Jäger Bt. (WW1).


----------



## JugBR (Jun 28, 2008)

the guy made a lot with few resources.


----------



## Nicolas (Jan 10, 2009)

Field Marshal Erich von Manstein during the battle for Kharkov after the collapse of 6th army at Stalingrad, saved the entire Eastern Front and provided the Germans with the launchpad for the offensive to Kursk. After the failure of Citadel the Soviets counterattacked. In September he withdrew to the west bank of the Dnieper River, while inflicting heavy casualties on the Red Army. From October to mid January of 1944,von Manstein "stabilized" the situation but in late January was forced to retreat further westwards by a Soviet offensive. In mid-February of 1944, von Manstein disobeyed Hitler's order and ordered 11th and 42nd Corps (consisting of 56,000 men in six divisions) of Army Group South to breakout from the "Cherkassy Pocket", which occurred on February 16/17th. Eventually, Hitler accepted this action and ordered the breakout after it already took place. Manstein continued to argue with Hitler about overall strategy and in March 1944 he was dismissed from office.


----------



## walle (Jan 10, 2009)

> Who Is Germany's Greatest General?


It’s difficult to pick one but Field Marshall Erich von Manstein would be one of the top contenders, in my opinion.



> from an allied point of view,paulus must rate highly


From the allied point of view the top marks would fall on the bohemian corporal we all have come to know as Adolf Hitler, however; he is know where to be seen in the poll…and for obvious reasons. 


//Eric


----------



## Amsel (Jan 10, 2009)

Guderian was the greatest General in my opinion. He had the best tactical sense, but Rommel is also great.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 27, 2010)

Manstein. His command in southern Russia and the Ukraine was near flawless given the circumstances. And as far as Germans not being adaptable, I don't think that to be the case, As what I have read this is the opposite. Several times a lot of the generals mentioned where saved by the decisions of there subordinates. And Rommel was great, but would his personal style of command be prudent for a army group commander on the eastern front? I believe his best would be as a corps commander. Just my opinion.


----------



## BikerBabe (Jun 27, 2010)

Rommel.
Gotta say that I've got to respect a man who knows his hardware, and how to apply it. 
Sry, it's late, I'll go sleep now.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jun 27, 2010)

Rommel won me over because not only was he one hell of a general, he also realized the horrors of the "Final Solution" and helped in a few plots against Hitler. The story of the July 20th conspirators proved to the rest of the world that Germany and Germans were people. People that made mistakes and lost a great war not a century ago. People who couldn't buy anything with billions in marks. People who were most desperate in a time when the economy was at its sickest. People who wanted a life worth living and a bright future, but desperate enough not to care for its cost. Rommel overcame that, and saw his flaws and his people's mistake. He tried to fix that the best he could. Exactly why Rommel wins hands down in my book.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 27, 2010)

BikerBabe said:


> Rommel.
> Gotta say that I've got to respect a man who knows his hardware, and how to apply it.
> Sry, it's late, I'll go sleep now.





Waiter, CHECK PLEASE!


----------



## B-17engineer (Jun 28, 2010)

BikerBabe said:


> Rommel.
> Gotta say that I've got to respect a man who knows his hardware, and how to apply it.
> Sry, it's late, I'll go sleep now.



Alrighty then.....


----------



## Timppa (Jun 28, 2010)

In a pure cold clinical way I would have voted for Manstein.
But since Im not cold and clinical I voted for Rommel. Rommel even wrote a book "Krieg Ohne Hass" ("War without hate") reflecting his desert war experiences.

von Manstein did issue an order on November 20, 1941: his version of the infamous "Reichenau Order" , which equated "partisans" and "Jews" and called for draconian measures against them. Hitler commended the "Reichenau Order" as exemplary and encouraged other generals to issue similar orders. Von Manstein was among the minority that voluntarily issued such an order. It stated that:

"This struggle is not being carried on against the Soviet Armed Forces alone in the established form laid down by European rules of warfare.
...
Jewry is the middleman between the enemy in the rear and the remains of the Red Army and the Red leadership still fighting. More strongly than in Europe they hold all key positions of political leadership and administration, of trade and crafts and constitutes a cell for all unrest and possible uprisings.
The Jewish Bolshevik system must be wiped out once and for all and should never again be allowed to invade our European living space.
The German soldier has therefore not only the task of crushing the military potential of this system. He comes also as the bearer of a racial concept and as the avenger of all the cruelties which have been perpetrated on him and on the German people."
...
"The soldier must appreciate the necessity for the harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual bearer of the Bolshevik terror. This is also necessary in order to nip in the bud all uprisings which are mostly plotted by Jews."
The order also stated: "The food situation at home makes it essential that the troops should as far as possible be fed off the land and that furthermore the largest possible stocks should be placed at the disposal of the homeland. Particularly in enemy cities a large part of the population will have to go hungry."

In the Nuremberg trial, Manstein was found guilty of two charges and accountable for seven others, mainly for employing scorched earth tactics and for failing to protect the civilian population and was sentenced on December 19, 1949, to 18 years imprisonment. He was released on May 6, 1953 for medical reasons.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 28, 2010)

Just ask yourself "would he have had the same attitude if he would have been a British or American General?" . Did he fall victim to the thinking of his culture at that time? I am not defending the terrible acts committed, but at some level you have to be able to admire the purely military achievements. That is how I interpreted the poll.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 28, 2010)

Strange thing to see Rommel as best voted here. A place I don't think he deserves.

He was a General who always got himself in trouble. He was a big gambler, only getting away with it, because the British generals at the time were blundering big time. One of the reasons Rommel always ran out of supplies was because he didn't mind them, outrunning it all the time, which is a stupid thing to do (as was proven later). He lost when the British cleaned up the mess and decided to make up a good plan instead of blundering about.

I think Rommel still has the reputation, made up by the German propaganda. It was good propaganda, as it still works today.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 28, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Strange thing to see Rommel as best voted here. A place I don't think he deserves.
> 
> So you would take Montgomery over Rommel in an equal fight? Come on, the guy was Mcguyver of this bunch, look at what he did with what was given. Was he a gambler? Absolutely. That's Why I said I wouldn't make him any more than a corps commander. Although I went with Manstein, Rommel belongs on this list.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 28, 2010)

dennis420b said:


> So you would take Montgomery over Rommel in an equal fight? Come on, the guy was Mcguyver of this bunch, look at what he did with what was given. Was he a gambler? Absolutely. That's Why I said I wouldn't make him any more than a corps commander. Although I went with Manstein, Rommel belongs on this list.



Hmmm, you have a strange way of discussing. You wouldn't make him more than a corps-commander and still he deserves to be on the 'Best General' list. And who said anything about Montgomery? 

Fact is, when the British organization was straightened up, Rommel lost. It's as simple as that. Of course, he had bad supplies, but the stretching of the lines was his own doing. He also never appreciated that Malta should have been defeated before rushing from Tobruk to Cairo.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jun 28, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Hmmm, you have a strange way of discussing. You wouldn't make him more than a corps-commander and still he deserves to be on the 'Best General' list. And who said anything about Montgomery?
> 
> Fact is, when the British organization was straightened up, Rommel lost. It's as simple as that. Of course, he had bad supplies, but the stretching of the lines was his own doing. He also never appreciated that Malta should have been defeated before rushing from Tobruk to Cairo.



I voted for Rommel Because sure, he may have not been the greatest general ever but he also had a heart and didn't always personally agree with Hitler's policy of anti-semitism. By the way the poll is "The Best *GERMAN* General of WWII." and not "A Poll For Super-Critical People Discussing Who Is The Best Strategist Of WWII."

Also I think you don't realize that At the same time "The British organization was straightened up", America was starting to:
1. Use its industry to help support the British.
2. Land Troops in Morocco and put a two-front pressure on Rommel ( Where he was at his Weakest, too.)


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jun 28, 2010)

I would also like to add to that list that Britain and now America outnumbered the Germans severely in all and every categories. Fair fight? 1 word: NO.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 29, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> By the way the poll is "The Best *GERMAN* General of WWII." and not "A Poll For Super-Critical People Discussing Who Is The Best Strategist Of WWII."


I thought I was discussing that. Fine, Rommel was a good man, but does that make him a good general? What would you think is the definition of the best General? The whole of Rommel's campagin was notorious by having streched supply lines and bad communication, all caused by his own doing by gambling big time and disregarding logistics. That doesn't make him a candidate for the title *best German General* in my book. He lost that gamble finally at El Alamein. He simple stuck his neck out too far. Being a general is not just fighting and being nice to the men.

BTW, I might be a 'super critical' person, but I didn't know I was not allowed to disagree with the majority on this board. Thanks for telling me.



Zniperguy114 said:


> Also I think you don't realize that At the same time "The British organization was straightened up", America was starting to:
> 1. Use its industry to help support the British.
> 2. Land Troops in Morocco and put a two-front pressure on Rommel ( Where he was at his Weakest, too.)


Rommel was already pushed into the defense before the US landed in Morocco. I'm not just talking about one battle, but about the whole campaign.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 29, 2010)

No, your right, you should be able to be critical. And for my inflexibility, I apologize. But it is a bold statement to say Rommel does not belong on the list of best German ww2 general's. Its gonna raise some eyebrows. And he stuck his neck out because he had to, he did not have the option's that the allies had, it was attack or leave. He knew that if he waited he would be rolled over by numbers that he couldn't imagine.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 29, 2010)

I think its perfectly ok when discussing one's attributes to make comparisons to other country's generals. 

That said,....



> He was a General who always got himself in trouble. He was a big gambler, only getting away with it, because the British generals at the time were blundering big time.



The same could be said of Patton. In my army I would want a General who thinks outside the box, is aggressive and trusts his abilities than blindly following orders - like von Paulus.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 29, 2010)

dennis420b said:


> But it is a bold statement to say Rommel does not belong on the list of best German ww2 general's. Its gonna raise some eyebrows.



That was the whole idea, doesn't make good discussions without different opinions.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jun 29, 2010)

Sorry I angered you and yes you can be critical, but saying Rommel doesn't belong on the list is something I just can't agree with. I guess I was too critical on you, Marcel, so sorry about that. But the Allies did have the resources to stick out there necks and the Germans did not. El Alamein proved that, but I don't think it proved Rommel was a bad general but rather how limited the Axis were at that point.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 29, 2010)

If you have in abundance material, men, and a good reserve, you can be more conservative. But if you are understrength, with no hope of reinforcement you have 3 choices. 1- Defend what you got and hope for the best. That outcome is bad and we all know it. 2- Leave the theater. Not an option given by superiors. 3- Throw the "Hail Mary". Rest it all on the experience and courage of you and your men, and a whole lot of luck and bravado to beat or scare the enemy into retreating. He had few options. Sure the man was a gambler, but that's what you do when you don't have luxuries of replacements and reserves.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 30, 2010)

No worries, guys.


Njaco said:


> The same could be said of Patton. In my army I would want a General who thinks outside the box, is aggressive and trusts his abilities than blindly following orders - like von Paulus.


If you want some-one thinking out-of-the-box, you should pick Guderian. He was gambling as well, but his were usually better weighted..



Zniperguy114 said:


> But the Allies did have the resources to stick out there necks and the Germans did not. El Alamein proved that, but I don't think it proved Rommel was a bad general but rather how limited the Axis were at that point.


The reason why I think is not because he lost, it's the way he did his gambles, I'll explain later. 



dennis420b said:


> If you have in abundance material, men, and a good reserve, you can be more conservative. But if you are understrength, with no hope of reinforcement you have 3 choices. 1- Defend what you got and hope for the best. That outcome is bad and we all know it. 2- Leave the theater. Not an option given by superiors. 3- Throw the "Hail Mary". Rest it all on the experience and courage of you and your men, and a whole lot of luck and bravado to beat or scare the enemy into retreating. He had few options. Sure the man was a gambler, but that's what you do when you don't have luxuries of replacements and reserves.


You can also think of attacking, but still keep an eye on your valuable resources. Blindly attacking, loosing 2/3 of your tanks and all of your fuel while your situation is dire is suicide instead of brilliant strategy in my eyes. I also wouldn't call Kamikaze a good tactic and that's precisely what Rommel did with his whole army.

One thing, on a tactical level, I think Rommel was brilliant. He just wasn't on a strategic level. I fully agree with the statement that he would have been a good corps commander, but wasn't fit to command a whole army. I think it was one reason why he was a star in such a minor part of WWII instead of the more important ones. Rommel had the luck that the British commanders at the start of the campaign were even worse.

If I have time, I'll be more clear about what I deem reckless gambles by Rommel later this week, to back up my claim that Rommel should not be first in this list.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 30, 2010)

Ok Marcel let me ask you this. Do you think the axis situation in North Africa not winnable? And who would you have appointed over the same troops? Keep in mind, who you decide on would not be at his historical post. Hitler would not have sent Guderian, or Von Rundstedt, to command this size of a force.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jun 30, 2010)

Marcel, I guess you've convinced me that I should have not picked Rommel, But he DOES belong on the list in my book. The question is now who should I have picked? Any Suggestions?


----------



## Marcel (Jun 30, 2010)

dennis420b said:


> Ok Marcel let me ask you this. Do you think the axis situation in North Africa not winnable? And who would you have appointed over the same troops? Keep in mind, who you decide on would not be at his historical post. Hitler would not have sent Guderian, or Von Rundstedt, to command this size of a force.


I think the Axis situation in 1941 was winnable if they had been wanting to. Doesn't matter either Rommel or any other general could have brought home the victory over the British forces if only the Germans had taken the Norht African theater seriously. British at that time were totally in disarray, not grasping modern warfare and had many un-imaginative commanders. They were occupied by the events in the Balkan and did not use their full potential in the dessert. They were also lacking on the technological level, so the balance at that time was not unfavorable for the Germans. If the Germans had taken measurements to ensure their supply lines and had someone to keep Rommel in line, they could have won.
Who would I have chosen if I had been the German High Command? Well, if I would have had the same priorities as the Germans had then, I would have chosen Rommel. He would not have had much value on the Russian front where he would have gone un-noticed amongst the other generals. Let us not forget he was a major asset in the propaganda war, that was his biggest succes. I I really wanted to win the desert war, I would have chosen Guderian, promoting him to Field Marshal as well. Someone with the same flair and aggressiveness as Rommel and IMO with better grasp of reality.



Zniperguy114 said:


> Marcel, I guess you've convinced me that I should have not picked Rommel, But he DOES belong on the list in my book. The question is now who should I have picked? Any Suggestions?



Okay, fair enough, he made a huge contribution by being one of the biggest propaganda successes in the German history. This alone gives him the right to be on the list. 

Which one should you choose? That's up to you, and it is a difficult question as it depends on what qualities you think a general should have. I would advice against Paulus, who was un-imaginative and not brilliant IMO. I myself choose Guderian for his grasp on modern mobile warfare (like Rommel), inventive thinking but with less of the faults of Rommel. Von Manstein is a good candidate, too and I could easily have picked him, Kesselring was brilliant in his own way, but failed to give Rommel the support he needed. They all have their pro's and cons. It's just what you think are best qualities for a General.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 30, 2010)

Ok we all agree with more of a commitment they could have won, but what units were available? The eastern front required the bulk of available mobile forces, the Luftwaffe was already stretched thin, and with very little German naval units they were reliant on the Italian navy. So where would the needed resources to come from?


----------



## Marcel (Jun 30, 2010)

dennis420b said:


> Ok we all agree with more of a commitment they could have won, but what units were available? The eastern front required the bulk of available mobile forces, the Luftwaffe was already stretched thin, and with very little German naval units they were reliant on the Italian navy. So where would the needed resources to come from?



Remember, Rommel was already on African soil before Barbarossa started. That's why I said the words: "If they had been wanting to win". They didn't, Hitler's priorities lay in Russia. One wonders why they even bothered at all to help the Italians in Libya at that inconvenient time. Malta should have been captured at all costs and ASAP, giving the LW the opportunity to rule the Mediterranean sea. It would have given the Afrika Korps a better chance. 
Even as it was, at the end of 1941, the amount of British combat-ready vehicles was actually lower than that of the Afrika Korps. So the Germans did not have that big a disadvantage as is claimed at that time.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jul 1, 2010)

Invading Russia ended the war for Germany. If Hitler had the patience to wait for Britain to fall he could have easily won. But, One time I saw a thing about that Winston Churchill had sent Stalin a telegraph inviting him as an ally. It said due to confusion, the telegraph was sent again after Stalin already said no. Hitler's spies picked up that they were comunicating and thought there was an impending attack from the east. He thought wrong, but I'm not sure if that is true.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 1, 2010)

I think its silly to argue that Rommel was not a great military commander. I dont think he was the greatest, for me that has to be Manstein, but Rommel was still a brilliant commander that rung the utmost from the resources at his dispposal

What intrigues me her though, is this notion that Germany could not win.....that the poor Germans were outnumbered and could not take risks. 

Germany outnumbered the British in effective ground formation immediately after Dunkirk about 120:1. She had a frontline fighter force of 1200:350, and an airforce of 4500:1200. She had the most effective sub force in the world, the best warships, and the 2nd biggest economy in the world. She had at her feet the entire economic resouces of western europe.

The British had an economic potential about half that of Germany. She had access to a small amount of lend lease aid, and was supported by the Commonwealth and her empire. On paper she was outgunned, outmanned out resourced. Yet the Germans squandered all these advantages....a product of the Nazi innefficiency mostly. She had every opportunity to win, but blew it basically.

To argue that the allies possessed a manifest destiny of winning is insulting to both sides, and completely wrong, at least for the period 1938-42


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 1, 2010)

Manstein the same... its hard to agree with repeated results!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2010)

I am going to have to agree with Parsifal here. It was a prime example of how a Politician with no strategic sense (and surrounded by "yes men") should never be left to be the ultimate decision maker in a war.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 1, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I think its silly to argue that Rommel was not a great military commander.



Might be silly, but I stick to my view. I still don't see any greatness in kamikaze strategies.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It was a prime example of how a Politician with no strategic sense (and surrounded by "yes men") should never be left to be the ultimate decision maker in a war.



Fully agreed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jul 4, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Might be silly, but I stick to my view. I still don't see any greatness in kamikaze strategies.....



I agree with you except in most cases with Rommel, they worked. While he was racing with his tanks during the first few days after 10 May 1940, there was a standing order that tanks were not to fire their guns while moving. Rommel, knowing how surprise can be half the battle, ignored the order and had his tanks open fire, regardless of aim and eventually captured several towns and numerous French prisoners. Kamikazi strategy but thought out at least.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jul 6, 2010)

Also Rommel had great success in France, even though the campaign it only lasted 8 to 10 days. I guess I'll go with Guderian because he pioneered in The modern use of tanks.


----------



## P40NUT (Oct 9, 2010)

Rommel


----------



## robwkamm (Oct 9, 2010)

General Bolker from hogans heros has my vote.


----------



## Freebird (Oct 15, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> I would also like to add to that list that Britain and now America outnumbered the Germans severely in *all and every categories*. Fair fight? 1 word: NO.



 Not so fast, in several categories (tank quality, anti-tank gun effectiveness etc) the Germans had a clear advantage.



Njaco said:


> *The same could be said of Patton*. In my army I would want a General who thinks outside the box, is aggressive and trusts his abilities than blindly following orders - like von Paulus.



Yes, and that's why Patton would never make my best (strategic) General's list. Patton was effective partly because he had Ike Bradley to watch over him, if he was a theater commander the Allies would have had huge problems because of his ego reckless style



Zniperguy114 said:


> Marcel, I guess you've convinced me that I should have not picked Rommel, But he DOES belong on the list in my book. The question is now who should I have picked? Any Suggestions?



Guderian Manstien are excellent choices, as shown by the poll votes



Marcel said:


> Even as it was, at the end of 1941, the amount of British combat-ready vehicles was actually lower than that of the Afrika Korps. So the Germans did not have that big a disadvantage as is claimed at that time.



Yes, and quality was a big factor too, the Matilda II was king of the desert in 1940, but the Crusader Grant were no match for the 50mm Pz III and the (long) 75mm Pz IV



parsifal said:


> What intrigues me her though, is this notion that Germany could not win.....that the poor Germans were outnumbered and could not take risks.
> 
> To argue that the allies possessed a manifest destiny of winning is insulting to both sides, and completely wrong, at least for the period 1938-42



Yes, true. An effective naval strategy would have wrecked the British supply line to the desert.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 15, 2010)

Someone missed out Von Blucher and Prince Eugen without which this post may be en francais. If only Germany existed then.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 16, 2010)

That would've been just fine (to type this an francais); it was French government that reinstated Croatian language in early 1800s in the place it belongs. Not to mention building roads hospitals in, once, neglected parts of Venetian Republic.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KevinK. (Oct 22, 2010)

I'd have to go with Guderian. For all around ability at all aspects of warfare.

But the list would be Guderian, Rommel and von Manstein.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Konig (Oct 23, 2010)

Generaloberst Paul Hausser for me.

Often overlooked. I like him best best because he stood up to Hitlers absurd and constant no withdrawal policy where ever he went.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Coy (Mar 10, 2011)

Erwin Rommel: The History Channel tells me he tried to defect against Hitler.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2011)

Coy said:


> Erwin Rommel: The History Channel tells me he tried to defect against Hitler.



Not really. His name just came up in a list of conspirators. How much he was actually involved is not known.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 11, 2011)

yes, unfortunately Rommel was a pretty committed nazi. he did start to be disilusioned as the normandy campaign draqgged on, and he realized he could achieve victory, but he was never an active member of the conspiracy


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2011)

parsifal said:


> yes, unfortunately Rommel was a pretty committed nazi. y



I honestly do not believe that either, but like I said, I do not believe he was part of the conspiracy.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 7, 2018)

Thorlifter said:


> Rommel here too, with Guderian right under him.


I agree, 100%. Also brings up the only error (albiet a minor one) in the 1970 movie "Patton" Actor George C. Scott says "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your goddamn book"! The Tank in Battle was written in 1934 by German General Heinz Guedarian- Rommel's mentor. However, Hollywood being Hollywood, the director may well have assumed the most American viewers would recognize Rommel's name, more so than Geurdarian's- Both were great German field commanders.


----------



## Elmas (Jan 22, 2018)

Kesserling was resisting in Italy when Germany, practically, was defeated.
He was actually also responsible for many civilians murders in Italy, but that is another story, of course.
The next I would say Guderian.
Rommel? Hmmmm, I'm afraid I don't see all that "foxiness" in him, thinking to the First Battle of El Alamein...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 22, 2018)

Elmas said:


> Kesserling was resisting in Italy when Germany, practically, was defeated.
> He was actually also responsible for many civilians murders in Italy, but that is another story, of course.
> The next I would say Guderian.
> Rommel? Hmmmm, I'm afraid I don't see all that "foxiness" in him, thinking to the First Battle of El Alamein...


Old "Smilin' Al" Kesserling- I have always wonder how a Luftwaffe General became re-assigned to the Wehrmacht. Any insight into this. If Albert K. ordered execution of civilians in the Italian campaign, that would diminish his standing in my opinion, as I am lead to believe that Rommel did not execute Allied POW's, unless they were trying to escape-ditto civilians. At least I would like to think that about "Der Westul Fuchs"!! I also read somewhere that in Afrika, one of Rommel's Staff Officers captured a sizeable amount of brandy, whiskey, canned beef and jam from the British- which he planned to distribute among the Higher Ranking Officers- When Rommel heard of this, he cashiered the Officer, and ordered that every man in his command, regardless of rank or status, be given an equal share of the loot. If this is indeed true, then Rommel followed the oldest example of leadership: "Officers always eat last, Enlisted men eat first." Different aspects of this scenario played out in the ETO after D-Day..


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 22, 2018)

Konig said:


> Generaloberst Paul Hausser for me.
> 
> Often overlooked. I like him best best because he stood up to Hitlers absurd and constant no withdrawal policy where ever he went.


Just curious, was he involved in the July 1944 "Valkerie" attempt on Hitler's life at The Wolf's Lair? If so, did he escape the noose and live out to war through the surrender in May 1945.


----------

