Effective Generals.

Discussion in 'General' started by von Poop, Jul 10, 2006.

  1. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    So which Military commander of General Rank and above, axis or allied made the greatest contribution to their nations war effort?
    And by extension of that question which Commander had the most negative effect on their nations war effort?

    Just interested in What people think.
    For positive effort I'll go for Alanbrooke but i'm ready to change my mind and haven't decided on who was the most useless, (Hitler seems the most obvious but I think we should disregard the politicians in uniform with technically high military rank in an attempt to hear more about the subordinates), hopefully there'll be some good suggestions.

    Cheers,
    Adam.
     
  2. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    I was going to say Alanbrooke too for most positive!Perhaps Zukhov was the most effective General.Most useless one would be Mark Clarke of 5th Army in Italy.Also General Percival at Singapore.Sure he could have done more to defend Singapore more aggressively, or is that just hindsight speaking?
     
  3. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    I'm going to nominate Brehon Somervell of the US Services of Supplies.

    Logistics won the war, and Somervell oversaw that whole process.
     
  4. Steen Ammentorp

    Steen Ammentorp Senior Member

    A very interesting question but it is perhaps difficult to pick both the one and the other.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Alanbrooke made to greatest contribution to Great Britain's war effort but who had the most negative contribution is more difficult. While it is true that Percival lost at Singapore, and that I have also felt that Percival was the wrong commander at the wrong place, I don't think he deserves this title as much were out of his hands. In effect on the war effort I think that 'Tiny' Ironsides decision to support British involvement in Scandinavian operations in 1940, which ultimately delayed the transfer of IV Corps to France, had much greater impact on the turn of the war than the defeat of Singapore. Imagine what would have happen if the BEF had constituted of an army group rather than a single army in 1940?

    As for the US my nominee is also the chief of staff – Marshall. I doubt that any other US officer would have been able to over see the expansion and training of the Army. He did this with tremendous capability and it is not for nothing that he has earned the title: Organizer of Victory. Another important thing about him is that he commanded the respect of practically all his subordinates (in this way he resembled Alanbrooke), a quality very important to a CoS. That I find Marshall wanting in strategy thinking has no impact on my opinion on him. Which US officer had the most negative impact on the American war effort is difficult to say but while no fan of Clarke I don't think he is a candidate. Personally I would rather say that Fredendall's failure in North Africa had much more impact as it meant that US' allies (British) lost much confidence in the Americans ability to wage war, and it also meant that the Americans temporary lost their self-confidence and as result Churchill and Alanbrooke were able to have decisions made that the Americans would not otherwise have agreed to. Otherwise I think that general J.C.H (Jesus Christ Himself) Lee's waste of resources in his command could have been used in a way that they would have made a difference in ending the war in Europe.

    I will return with my nominees for the other nations tomorrow.
     
  5. Gibbo

    Gibbo Senior Member

    I think that it was difficult for an individual battlefield commander to make a huge contribution to such a huge war fought on many fronts & hence have chosen men who were involved at a very high level. I was tempted to go for Roosevelt as the greatest & Hitler as the most negative as they were their countries' CinCs but they weren't serving officers. I've therefore picked George Marshall as the greatest & can't add anything to the reasons given by Steen. For the most negative I'd nominate Herman Goering who failed on tactical, operational, strategic, logistic & technological levels.
     
  6. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Goering? of course. I'll join you on that one for now.
    Marshall and Somervell also excellent suggestions. Marshall particularily, someone's got to put all the right Generals in all the right places. Don't quite know enough about him for him to knock Alanbrooke off my number 1 spot though. He didn't have a Churchill to contend with as well as a war.
     
  7. Steen Ammentorp

    Steen Ammentorp Senior Member

    Adam,

    Did I misunderstand your original question. Are you not seeking those who made the greatest and most negative contribution to the war effort within their respective nations? How Marshall's contribution to the US war effort can be compared with Alanbrooks to the British war effort is difficult for me to understand.
     
  8. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Adam,

    Did I misunderstand your original question. Are you not seeking those who made the greatest and most negative contribution to the war effort within their respective nations? How Marshall's contribution to the US war effort can be compared with Alanbrooks to the British war effort is difficult for me to understand.

    No problem with interpretation of the question at all. I think you're right in that it would be great to have nominations for each nation, I'm just Choosing Alanbrooke as the overall most impressive to me personally.
    (this is as much down to the fact he's the one I know more about as much as anything else... so bring on the Generals..)
    Cheers,
    Adam
     
  9. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    In relation to Effective Generals well on the British side I would say that Slim was probably the most Effective General the British had, and I take nothing from Alan Brooke and Montgomery. One wonders if he had been in Europe would he have coped as well and I think he would. As regards having a negative impact well its easy to say Percival but I'm not so sure. Whoever sent the Repulse and Prince of Wales into the Far East with no air cover deserves mention here.

    In relation to the German Side well I would put Keitel right up there. Of all the German High command he was best placed to try to influence Hitler but he had no backbone and ultimately became Hitler's "Lackey".

    Germany's most effective general? There are a few candidates (and no, none of them are called Rommel!!!) I would put forward such luminaries as Hermann Balck or indeed Albert Kesselring. Both men who were extremely capable of producing results under negative conditions
     
  10. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    Halder would have to be up there with Keitel. Those surrounding Hitler had to be yes men, if they dared argue they took the risk of disappearing. Only Guderian appears to have the nerve to cross him. When the likes of Rommel came to Berlin, they couldn't even get to Hitler and dealt with by junior members of staff- and they were in the front line. Percival gets the flak over Singapore, but the situation was known years in advance and nobody deemed invasion from the North by the Japanese viable. Just look at the placement of the guns. Singapore was the poor relation. Percival could be perceived in some circles as a scapegoat.

    Fredenhall in Africa did no one any favours in Africa. Fun how he hardly gets brought up, his incompetence was known to senior officers but they did nothing about it.
     
  11. Pog

    Pog Junior Member

    Hmmmm....

    Interesting...

    British (including Commonwealth) - Good Commanders

    Slim, Gale and Monty.

    British - Bad

    Percival, Freyburg at Crete and Browning

    US - The only one I really have an opinion on for being bad is Brereton, always thought Stillwell did quite well even if he was a bit of a nutter!

    German - Good

    Student, Kesselring, Model. Runestedt

    German - Bad

    Rommel, Von Paulus
     
  12. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    German - Bad

    Rommel, Von Paulus
    Why do you think Rommel was a bad general? I personally rank him highly.
     
  13. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    For Rommel I'd say:
    Tactically, rather good.
    Strategically, rather poor.
     
  14. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    Who would you say was the worst performing general considering his resources and the strategic/ tactical position he was in at the time?

    Also the other side of the coin, who with his resources turned a crisis into a war winnng situation, through his skill and tactical acumen.

    My reasoning is basically this. You have the situation in the far East where Slim snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Detractors of Montgomery say Alamein was his claim to fame, but was found lacking at Arnhem and Op Goodwood. Wavell supposedly a top performer in Africa but he is eclipsed by Montgomery.
     
  15. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    Why did Vinegar Joe have such animosity towards the British? I think Freyberg didn't do that bad a job at Crete if one considers the mauling the Kiwis gave to the Fallschirmjager. A spirited fight in the circumstances.
     
  16. Pog

    Pog Junior Member

    Rommel - Great tactical level commander but woeful as an army commander as he possessed no grasp of logistics. He should have remained a Divisional level commander where he would have been of far more use.

    Colonel Rainer Kreibel was CoS of 15th Panzer in North Africa and in his book, 'Inside the Afrika Korps', he points to Rommels weaknesses strategically as the main root of the DAK defeat.
     
  17. Pog

    Pog Junior Member

    Why was Monty found 'Lacking at Arnhem'?

    While the initial plan for Market-Garden may have been Monty's, though in all likelyhood it probablly wasnt, he had little to do with the operational planning. That was the main mistake he made. Had he kept a tighter control on it, rather than leaving it others it may have been different.

    Monty in Normandy, while seen as unimpressive, did manage to destroy the Panzerwaffe in the West with an army that was somewhat tired of war.

    Im no lover of Monty... Never have been... But I do think lately it has become 'popular' to knock him.
     
  18. Gibbo

    Gibbo Senior Member

    Who would you say was the worst performing general considering his resources and the strategic/ tactical position he was in at the time?

    Also the other side of the coin, who with his resources turned a crisis into a war winning situation, through his skill and tactical acumen.



    I'd interpret that as a slightly different question to the original one. I'd take this one to mean who did the best & the worst compared to their resources. The first one I assumed meant who made the biggest contribution in absolute terms & I therefore looked only at men at the Chief of General Staff or Theatre CinC level. On the basis that it's a different question, I'll go for another answer.

    For this question, I'd say that the worst contribution would be from Maurice Gamelin for France in 1940. He was on the defensive, had more tanks & guns, although fewer aircraft than the enemy, time to prepare & a strong defensive position along much of his line behind which to prepare a counter attacking force.

    For the best, since you said war winning I guess that it has to be an Allied commander, which makes the question harder given their greater resources once the USA entered. I was tempted by Raymond Spruance at Midway (I'm assuming that the question means commander rather than land commander) but I think that the US had so many carriers under construction that a Japanese victory at Midway would at most have delayed Japan's defeat in the war. I've therefore gone for Hugh Dowding since the Battle of Britain was one that the RAF could have lost & where defeat would have made it very hard for the Allies to win the war.

    Since I went for the loser of the Battle of Britain, Herman Goering, as the worst in my other interpretation, my two answers are at least consistent. I'm not claiming that the Battle of Britain was THE decisive battle of the war, but it was one of the most important.
     
  19. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    Apologies, my wording was a bit ambiguous at best. What I meant was with the resources available did the best job. Agree Monty has been the target of the Americans as of late. Clark didn't like being subordinated to Alexander. Patton to Montgomery. Spaatz(I think) to Leigh- Mallory. Clark acted the great I am , stuck to the beaches instead of breaking out allowing the Germans to consolidate their positions. Supposedly to lead team to bring Darlan into line and the dog ends up taking everybody else for a walk.

    As I said "Detractors found him lacking at Arnhem and Op Goodwood" - not my reasoning. He had been wounded a few times in the first war and saw first hand the results of the strategy used then. He wouldn't waste the lives of his troops. He was unlucky to have two panzer divisions - elite ones at that parked up at Arnhem, which no one knew about and also the story of the plans falling into German hands. If he had pulled it off it would have shortened the war by a few months. Only a few because bear in mind the length of time it took for the Russians to get to Berlin by mid 45.

    Makes one think what would have happen if instead of keeping the Russians sweet and letting them take Berlin,Eisenhower instead had allowed Patton to blast on through. A greater part of Eastern Europe would not have been under Soviet rule after the conflict, or the war continuing with Patton moving further East and America and Russia as adversaries.
     
  20. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    Rommel - Great tactical level commander but woeful as an army commander as he possessed no grasp of logistics. He should have remained a Divisional level commander where he would have been of far more use.

    Colonel Rainer Kreibel was CoS of 15th Panzer in North Africa and in his book, 'Inside the Afrika Korps', he points to Rommels weaknesses strategically as the main root of the DAK defeat.
    In the book Rommel by Desmond Young. It is noted that a lot of officers didn't like Rommel not because of his abilities but clash of personalities. Heider springs to mind. von Arnim is another. Seems odd don't you think the man running the Afrika campaign and he is denied even an audience with the Fuhrer.
     

Share This Page