Who was the best commander in WWII?

[Bigpop]

 I vote for what Bigpop said

  hahahahaha

[CommissarGears]

I want to say Patton simply because he had that 'you cant beat me' additude you want in your commanding officer, and he'd go for the throat in every offensive he conducted, really proving himself and getting the Glory that he wanted from WW2.

I also want to say Rommel for how efficiently he used what little he had to maximise his effectiveness in battle.

The war bred so many Heroic men, and Amazing leaders on every side its hard to choose just one.

Im partial to the Pacific Front and US Marines, but until i looked it up the Marine Corps didnt even have a 4 star General until 1942, aparently Alexander Vandegrift lead the victory at the battle of Guadacanal against the Japanese and earned the Navy Cross and the Congressional Medal of Honor for the occupation and defense of Guadacanal, Tulagi, and Gavutu. (Citing Wikipedia)

You learn something new every day, Semper Fi Marine.

[UeArtemis]

The topic is 3 years old now! WoW
And still alive!
Rommel lead. Why is he so popular? He did not win the war in the desert.

[LeRagpicker]

guderian

[xenotype]

Patton.  More balls than anyone else.  Turned a lackluster US force in the desert around and beat Rommel at his own game.  Also was extremely successful in ending the Battle of the Bulge.

He wasn't perfect, he was the main reason the M26 manufacturing was slowed in preference to the terrible M4.  If it wasn't for that, the US could have gone from the worst tank of the late war to the best.

[Capt. Malashenko]

US had Air cover, Soviets artillery, they both used sledgehammer tactic, but only the Germans (and the Finns) had to do with miserable irreplaceable resources relaying on max effectiveness of few (not always) superior units. The capability of the army commander to exploit it`s troops knowledge and experience as well as their equipment was and still is crucial. In that matter, I must say Mannerheim (Finland), Erich von Manstein (Germany), and Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Vasilevsky (CCCP) witch, btw, no one mentioned. Vasilevsky avoided catastrophe for the Red army more then once, his opinion was very valued in High Command, especially by Zhukov, but his need in man and resources were hardly ever met.

[Henry]

Zhukov in my opinion. I watched a documentary about the battle of Kursk that was from the commanders perspective, and saw what he was planning, he was a damn good commander and turned the Eastern Front around single-handedly, and he ALSO destroyed Großdeutschland division, consisting of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd SS PzGrenDiv.

And well, he beat Mannstein. But, if the battle had continued without Hitler taking away Mannstein's armoured divisions, the fate of the eastern front may have been changed. But as it happened in history: Zhukov is the man.

[1richard]

i like Erwin Rommel but too, Bernard Lou Montgomery

so best german commander Erwin Rommel

best allies commander Bernard Lou Montgomery

[rummy]

For me it is easily hands down Erich Von Manstein, though I don’t know how you can have a best commander poll without him even nominated.

The only other time any Allied commander achieved so much success, with limited resources against a numerically superior opponent would be O’Connor in North Africa 1940, though because of his capture never seems to rate a mention, despite being one of the most successful campaigns in history.

[8doczzz1]

Monty was an incompetent glory-seeking pansy (screwed up everything but Africa).  Patton was a blood-thirsty glory-seeking idiot.  Neither were particularly impressive and are remembered in the west due to a lack of options.

The Germans had the best Generals, followed by the Sovs.  Rommel, Guderian, Zhukov.

[Sovereign]

Monty was an incompetent glory-seeking pansy (screwed up everything but Africa).  Patton was a blood-thirsty glory-seeking idiot.  Neither were particularly impressive and are remembered in the west due to a lack of options.

The Germans had the best Generals, followed by the Sovs.  Rommel, Guderian, Zhukov.

Oh such bliss,

So let me get this straight, you put Stalin on the same commanding level as Hitler?

Hell, Stalin didn't even trust half of his gens, thus why it took so long for them to react to the german offensive after the non-aggression pact. 

[Foxfort]

TITO was the best commander in WWII. To raise the army from peasant,and to fight several German and Italian division's all alone and to win.

[8doczzz1]

Oh such bliss,

So let me get this straight, you put Stalin on the same commanding level as Hitler?

Hell, Stalin didn't even trust half of his gens, thus why it took so long for them to react to the german offensive after the non-aggression pact.

Huh?  I put down 3 names, Stalin and Hitler were not among them.  I stated that I put Zhukov slightly lower than Guderian.  Such bliss.

If you'd like to discuss it though, my take: Stalin was probably a better military leader.  From Kursk to Stalingrad to Normandy and North Africa Hitler did everything conceivable to hinder his commanders.  After the initial purges wrecked his army, Stalin did find a few good people he trusted who were allowed to argue with him- and he took advice.

[gustavowizard]

Im not sure about the commanders or generals,
but Commander-Chief i think was Stalin (cold think; he was a butcher but he managed to turned the war against the most powerful army on planet at the moment), second Hitler and then Hirohito to me (Pear Harbor strategy was perfect, of 200 planes they lost 8 only i think, and the US lost 1/2 of its Naval force almost)

[Flyboy]

The topic is 3 years old now! WoW
And still alive!
Rommel lead. Why is he so popular? He did not win the war in the desert.

The only reason Rommel lost was because his army was under-supplied, he didn't control the Navy or Airforce so he couldn't really do anything about it. He sent dozens of pleas to Hitler asking him to do something about it. But he never did...