Who was the best commander in WWII?

[antman311]

Out of the list provided, Rommel. He was one of the most honorable and sharp Generals of the time. He did everything he could with what he had, and succeeded valiantly.

Not on the list: Tie between Manstein and Guderian.

[Paciat]

Erich von Manstein without any doubt
...the man was brilliant tactician and strategist which was not so common during WW2.

+1
At least thats what I hear watching documentry shows on Youtube.

[Seeme]

Why dosent anyone vote for Zhan de Latr de Tassinii?

[Sovereign]

It prove you dont know too much about this general (no offense intended  ).

Well it's just another chance to learn. Enlighten me about Zhukov, please.
[/quote]

 the Red Army dont relie on massive infantry charge and heavy losses, but much more on massive supply and interesting use of different parts of the army!

He also take part in the Finnish War, but stalin wanted to use georgian infantery division to be sure that they will not fraternize or betray the USSR, instead of regular infantry, much more equipped/trained/skilled and ready to fight in the cold winter. With officer's purges, we know all the results of the soviet offensive  And Zhukov dont performed well in this war.

In 1942, he also organized the defense of Stalingrad, and the encirclement of germans forces into the city. In 1943 he take part in the Kursk battle.
He also broke the siege of St-Petersburg in 1944, and lead the Operation Bagration.

Thats only the most known of his success. But his primary quality was his capacity to contradict stalin and to give him advise. Thanks to him, politics commissar lost their commanding powers in favor of officers in 1942, and these officers were then able/encouraged to take initiatives. Btw, he wasnt, like Rommel, a convinced partisans of stalin!
[/quote]
Care to back that up with actual facts and not your glorified dogma of the red army? Conscripts made the base of the army therefore to some extent every general in the red army would eventually have to utilize the necessity of using conscripts in waves of cannon fodder. Why do you think they made penal companies for? Also the fact proven by numbers is the Soviets did suffer the most causalities of all belligerents in the war.

I fail to see how this strengthens the point your trying to make..? hell its well known that Stalin didn't particularly care for any of his generals and viewed all of them more or less as potential rivals of his rule ex Great Purge. Lastly lets not forget that he even alluded to this when made statement on how he thought of Hitler as the red army's greatest general ironically we know that this wasn't far from the truth. 

Yes and no, yes he did but in large part it had more to do with Stalingrad itself and german folly in thinking they could bulldoze through instead of being forced into bottle-necking their forces and yes in large part due to Hitler thinking that if Stalingrad was taken somehow the war in the east would then be won..

Last but not the least what the hell did you even mean by that?

Also I would add to the list, overall I think Manstein was the most proficient of them but I would also add Heinrici and Bock.

[Red_Stinger]

Why dosent anyone vote for Zhan de Latr de Tassinii?

Do you mean Jean de Lattre de Tassigny? He was a good general, but he doesnt take part on very big, major operation as far as I know  Thats pleasing when people dont take all frenchs for collaborants/cowards! 


Sovereign, I'm not glorifying the red army. When you are studying red army in a deeper way than most (if not all) western people/historians, and make difference between soviet post-war propaganda/glorified war-story and real facts, you can notice that "Ennemy at the Gates" facts are bullshit.

You've talked about penal companies? There are penal companies in EVERY army, even in the "mighty" Wehrmacht, and in every army their purpose is to serve as cannon fodder.

Conscript didnt make the base of soviet army at all. Its evident that you dont know anything about the red army.
Conscript troops were formed in major, besieged cities like Moscow, St-Petersburg or Stalingrad to make basic defense lines and defend them! Thats all!

I will not talk in details about numbers of losses, I'm tired of this! Red Army suffer more losses than Wehrmacht, thats obvious. But much less that western historians keep to assert. Also numbers given are inaccurate.

"I fail to see how this strengthens the point your trying to make..?" I'am not making any points here. HyperSniper999 ask me about Zhukov. I answer him about Zhukov.

Dont take this post as the beginning of a flame-war here. I dont want to be impolite with you, but there is some "proved facts" about red army that irritate me, especially when facts are thrown within any deeper explanations! 

[Sovereign]

Why dosent anyone vote for Zhan de Latr de Tassinii?

Sovereign, I'm not glorifying the red army. When you are studying red army in a deeper way than most (if not all) western people/historians, and make difference between soviet post-war propaganda/glorified war-story and real facts, you can notice that "Ennemy at the Gates" facts are bullshit.

You've talked about penal companies? There are penal companies in EVERY army, even in the "mighty" Wehrmacht, and in every army their purpose is to serve as cannon fodder.

Conscript didnt make the base of soviet army at all. Its evident that you dont know anything about the red army.
Conscript troops were formed in major, besieged cities like Moscow, St-Petersburg or Stalingrad to make basic defense lines and defend them! Thats all!

I will not talk in details about numbers of losses, I'm tired of this! Red Army suffer more losses than Wehrmacht, thats obvious. But much less that western historians keep to assert. Also numbers given are inaccurate.

"I fail to see how this strengthens the point your trying to make..?" I'am not making any points here. HyperSniper999 ask me about Zhukov. I answer him about Zhukov.

Dont take this post as the beginning of a flame-war here. I dont want to be impolite with you, but there is some "proved facts" about red army that irritate me, especially when facts are thrown within any deeper explanations! 

Movies that come from Hollywood or any other such institution for that matter are solely for entertainment purposes not actual historic documentation but there are some truths in it for ex not everyone was able to even have a gun and supply thus why the mass movement for conscription which had happened prior to Stalingrad and the others you listed case and point. Also the documented "duel" as its called wasn't just some afternoon affair as its been documented that Vasily Zaytsev's rivalry with the unnamed Wehrmacht sniper happened over the course of three days.

Conscripts made up an estimated 1/3 of the entire army now granted the numbers varied as time went on but still the most provident soldiers even ones like strekly or even some guards for that matter had once been amassed and even when climbing the ranks and more times then not they would be mediocre at best when compared to most soldiers of the Wehrmacht at the time and lets not forget that they enlisted women who for a large part would had much rather stayed at the homestead.

I would love to debate it further but seeing how it seems you would continue in your ill-fated pre-conceived notion that I know nothing about the red army I shall leave it at that.

During the Great Patriotic War, the Red Army conscripted  29,574,900 men in addition to the 4,826,907 in service at the beginning of the war. Of this total of 34,401,807 it lost 6,329,600 KIA, 555,400 deaths by disease and 4,559,000 MIA (most captured). Of these 11,444,100, however, 939,700 rejoined the ranks in the subsequently liberated Soviet territory, and a further 1,836,000 returned from German captivity. Thus the grand total of losses amounted to 8,668,400.[48]. This is the official total dead, but other estimates give the number of total dead up to almost 11 million men, including 7.7 million killed or missing in action and 2.6 million POW dead (out of 5.2 million total POWs), plus 400,000 paramilitary and Soviet partisan losses.[49]  The majority of the losses, excluding POWs, being ethnic Russians (5,756,000), followed by ethnic Ukrainians  (1,377,400).[48]  However, as many as 8 million of the 34 million mobilized were non-Slavic minority soldiers, and around 45 divisions formed from national minorities served from 1941 to 1943.[50]

From wiki, oh darn those pesky facts have befallen my own personal dogma..

[Red_Stinger]

You should  leave at that, I agree. 

[Griptonix]

Do the American and Soviet enthusiasts take into account the cost of the successes of those such as Patton, Zhukov, Montgomery, and others? I truly believe that is what sets the Germans apart from the other countries in WW2. The Germans didn't have an endless suppply of soldiers and tanks, the Americans and Soviets did (Americans proping up the Brits) The Germans K/D ratio speaks for itself, simply put, the allies had more tanks and men then the Germans had ammunition to shoot at!

[Paciat]

Conscript didnt make the base of soviet army at all. Its evident that you dont know anything about the red army.
Conscript troops were formed in major, besieged cities like Moscow, St-Petersburg or Stalingrad to make basic defense lines and defend them! Thats all!

Pretty much.
Wehrmacht had there volkssturm, UK home guard and US national guard.

I will not talk in details about numbers of losses, I'm tired of this! Red Army suffer more losses than Wehrmacht, thats obvious. But much less that western historians keep to assert. Also numbers given are inaccurate.

Its interesting that in 1944 Soviet casualties/number of germans on the fronts ratio (Soviets fought 75% of german armies) were comparable to these of US and UK.

[CreeperFIN]

Mannerheim =D

[Seeme]

Thanks for starting another pointless agruement again mate

[Akalonor]

Who ? Its usually me ( I started a political riot in WoW trade chat , why do people call me a troll ?) but I havent posted in awhile.

[Seeme]

You like being a troll- I beat your one in Runescape

[Panzer4life]

I chose Patton for two reasons. One, he was willing to Rush in to beat the Germans head on in successful tank battles, which hurt German moral, and two, he was going to advance onto Moscow, but then he had an 'accident' involving a diesel truck. I say it was a Soviet assassination of Patton, cause they knew if he was going to move into Mosocw, they be hopeless to stop the US and British charge. Don't think that the Soviets, with more men, could have held of the US and British. The British were about to field the Centurion tank, and the US had the M26 on the battlefield. Also, the Allied Air power would have crushed the Soviet air force. And well, the US had the nuke, it could have killed two soviet armies with one bomb. So the Soviets offed Patton, effectively getting rid of the best Allied Commander of the war. (Montgomery was a coward, he wasn't willing to take risk if it ruined his reputation.)

[IJoe]

I chose Patton for two reasons. One, he was willing to Rush in to beat the Germans head on in successful tank battles, which hurt German moral, and two, he was going to advance onto Moscow, but then he had an 'accident' involving a diesel truck. I say it was a Soviet assassination of Patton, cause they knew if he was going to move into Mosocw, they be hopeless to stop the US and British charge. Don't think that the Soviets, with more men, could have held of the US and British. The British were about to field the Centurion tank, and the US had the M26 on the battlefield. Also, the Allied Air power would have crushed the Soviet air force. And well, the US had the nuke, it could have killed two soviet armies with one bomb. So the Soviets offed Patton, effectively getting rid of the best Allied Commander of the war. (Montgomery was a coward, he wasn't willing to take risk if it ruined his reputation.)

All you're saying is if ... . There are no ifs in history.
While practically, Patton didn't do much but kept his mouth open when it had to be shut way too often.
Don't get offended, I just think that the sum of his accomplishments just isn't big enough to seriously consider him even one of the best. He's more like one of the best known, if you get my point.
If Eva hadn't offered Adam that apple, he'd still be in Eden. So?