Who is the "best" german general in WW2

Yes, in fairness to Clark, Italy was most certainly not, as Churchill described it, "The soft underbelly of Europe".

It is long and harrow, making outflanking an enemy difficult. The mountains and rivers make movement and logistics very difficult.

In deciding who was the best general, Von Rundstedt must rank towards the top. His main problem was Hitler, and he deeply resented Hitler's constant and increasing interference. He became adept at resisting this, but a few times it cost him his post. Only the be recalled again, twice at least.

A somewhat cynical observer of the 3rd Reich, he finally lost his job during the early stages of the Normandy campaign, when some of his generals asked what to do. He apparently replied, "Make peace, you fools". Word got back to Keitel (best candidate for biggest ......... in the 3rd Reich) and soon to Adolf.

All of Germany's main European and Soviet victories were his work.

Yes, Manstein, Rommel, Model and Kesselring are also worthies. But don't forget the more junior generals of the Waffen SS, like Dietrich or even the much hated Eicke, who despite his odious nature was nevertheless a brave and effective leader, (check out the Totenkopf's actions in the Demjansk Pocket and other Eastern front battles) and also Paul Hausser.

These latter do not get the credit they deserve, all things considered, because they were SS. Yet, they were increasingly treated as Hitler's most capable and trusted soldier and used as his "fire brigade".

This is easy. Rommel.

Black Dog said:

But don't forget the more junior generals of the Waffen SS, like Dietrich or even the much hated Eicke, who despite his odious nature was nevertheless a brave and effective leader, (check out the Totenkopf's actions in the Demjansk Pocket and other Eastern front battles) and also Paul Hausser.

These latter do not get the credit they deserve, all things considered, because they were SS. Yet, they were increasingly treated as Hitler's most capable and trusted soldier and used as his "fire brigade".

Click to expand...

One could also add Peiper and Meyer to this list.

Absolutely. I agree completely.

Gorge123 said:

So, What do you think? Mine would be von manstein.

Click to expand...

For me it is those who stood up against the folly. Most did not, and thus cannot in any way qualify as "good" or "best". In spite of their alleged tactical ingenuity, I cannot but loathe their strategic short-sightedness and their moral indifference.

Argh!!!!!,

Maybe you guys can help me.

When I saw this thread I thought of only one man.

He has been called,"The man Hitler feared"

He was the German General who once said, and i paraphrase,"Hitler?! Do not fear Hitler, if he gets out of line I will shoot him myself."

I think he was on the General Staff, does anyone know his name?

Are you thinking of Heydrich? Certainly, Hitler feared him.

Heydrich was head of the Gestapo, RHSA (Reich security department), and SD (SS Security service).

In the Nazi scheme of things, his immediate superior was Himmler, and after that, Hitler.

Conspiracy theorists claim that Heydrich's assassination was on either Hitler or Himmler's orders.

Black Dog said:

Are you thinking of Heydrich? Certainly, Hitler feared him.

Heydrich was head of the Gestapo, RHSA (Reich security department), and SD (SS Security service).

In the Nazi scheme of things, his immediate superior was Himmler, and after that, Hitler.

Conspiracy theorists claim that Heydrich's assassination was on either Hitler or Himmler's orders.

Click to expand...

No,

This guy I am thinking of was firmly anti-nazi, he was a high ranking general but died of natural causes before the full blown outbreak of the War.


But interesting I never knew Hitler feared Heydrich?

Paragonrex said:

No,

This guy I am thinking of was firmly anti-nazi, he was a high ranking general but died of natural causes before the full blown outbreak of the War.


But interesting I never knew Hitler feared Heydrich?

Click to expand...

Are you thinking of Chancellor Hindenburg?

Mangekyou said:

Are you thinking of Chancellor Hindenburg?

Click to expand...

No,

Hinderburg prior to chancellor was a Field Marshall.

This guy was just a general.


AH I found him

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Schleicher]Kurt von Schleicher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Paragonrex said:

No,

Hinderburg prior to chancellor was a Field Marshall.

This guy was just a general.


AH I found him

Kurt von Schleicher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Only that he did not die of natural causes. He was murdered together with his wife by Hitler's gang in 1934.

Grimald said:

Only that he did not die of natural causes. He was murdered together with his wife by Hitler's gang in 1934.

Click to expand...

Thats where I got confused, lol!

He was killed in the "night of the long knives"

Although Ill admit, my knowledge on the man, isn't extensive.

IMO and historically, Von manstein may be the best general in the german army. This may be a matter of contention though, our experts may think otherwise

I am tied between Guderian and Manstein but overall I pick Erich von Manstein.

He was one of the primary planners of the armored invasion of France and the primary commander on the Eastern Front, fighting at battles such as Sevastopol, Kharkov, and Dnieper. He was held in high regard by his peers as the best German strategist of the War. It's often said his plans failed because of Hitler's indecisiveness and stubbornness.

SPERRO said:

IMO and historically, Von manstein may be the best general in the german army. This may be a matter of contention though, our experts may think otherwise

Click to expand...

You'll get murdered by the purists, if they see you using a capital "V", instead of lowercase, here

Mangekyou said:

Thats where I got confused, lol!

He was killed in the "night of the long knives"

Although Ill admit, my knowledge on the man, isn't extensive.

Click to expand...

He stood against Hitler when it appeared that the little Austrian was up to no good.

Von Hammerstein was another of note who stood against the evil of Hitler and had he not died of cancer would have dealt with him personally

Von Manstein, and Rommel were both clever and effective.

According to my humble opinion, there is no way to define the "best" German general. The reason of this statement is that every one of them fought against different opponents, in completely different climates and situations and also, with amazingly different specialisations. By that I mean, that just as the armies back then had very strict "role restrictions", so did the higher-ranked officers. Let us not forget that before and during the war, tight restrictions were put in the training, armarment and doctrine of different units and even companies. Especially in Germany, following the known "Prussian Military Organisation" we can see that people from different universes meet together, trying to carry out different tasks. I think that I have said enough useless thigns though, so I will proceed with my top 3 of German generals:


1.Erwin Rommel
I believe that man was a true genius. His ability to exploit enemy weaknesses and devise unimaginable traps and deceptions on the spot make him a force to reckon. Unlike other generals, he relied on commanding his men on the front, being strict with his men and very demanding. It was mentioned that during the invasion of France he dismissed an officer in a matter of minutes for being slower than the rest. Despite that, his men, on the biggest extent, admired him. Psychology is one of the main factors for one who fights a war, as you all very well know, and an inspiring commander is a truly gifted one. Other than his speed in decision making and inspirational traits, Rommel also possesed another "gift". He was decisive. He wouldn't back down on his opinion, no matter the cost. Being stubborn was also one of his main drawbacks as a character, but not as a general conducting armored warfare. I want to specify here that Rommel didn't follow the doctrine of "Blitzkrieg" in any point. Maybe some similar train of thought, but not the set of tactics one can define as Blitzkrieg. I would also like to add the fact that Rommel was what we could call a true soldier. His moral values stood high even in that time of the war. The DAK were never accused of war crimes, quite the opposite, they are said to have helped allied wounded and Rommel himself had diverted supplies from his own men to a military hospital he captured.(I would like to add here that my source for this is Wikipedia, so I can't be completely sure of the validity, hence the phrace "they are said....") Finally, his victories in the African front, most of which against all odds, even though he had minimum supplies, prove his skill. His tendncy to overstretch his supply lines was his downfall though(Even though he is not one to be blamed, as the OKW diverted the majority of the supplies to the Eastern front).

2.Heinz Guderian
Father of the Blitzkrieg, the Panzertruppen, a man with a vision. Little to say about this outstanding general. He fought endlessly against the old-fashioned generals during the inter-war period untill he managed to establish not only the founding of Panzertruppe, but also the use of radios to all members of the armored corps. His victories were not as sound and outstanding as the ones of other generals, but he certainly offered a lot to all campaigns. His skill was amazing, both in offense and defence, as we can deduct from his proposals for the re-organisation of the Eastern front during the last years of the war.

3.Erich Von Manstein
One word: Kharkov. The man's skills in that specific operation were proven to be superior not only to the ones the local Soviet generals, but to the whole STAVKA's, both in organisation and in execution. He was a master of battle manipulation and his evaluation of the enemy's skill and reactions made him one of the greatest generals to have even lived. He would have been first in this top three, weren't it for his lack of coordination. That lack was displayed in the battle of Kharkov when the LSSAH attacked the city just to "Please the Führer" despite orders to stand down untill further orders are given. The battle was won but unnecessary losses were sustained(Source: Military History Magazine - Great Battles: Kharkov 1943 Note:Title translated from greek, I don't know if the sam magazine exists in any other country). The second failure at coordination was presented at his attempt to break the Soviet siege of Stalingrad and resque what he could of the 6th Army, led by Von Paulus. He managed to contact the besieged army, but failed to cooperate with them properly and as such, they could not organise an attack from the inside in time to link up with Von Manstein's forces. Due to various delays the army was ordered to stay in the city, by direct orders from Hitler who had the time to be informed(Source: Same magazine as the one stated above, this time with the Battle of Stalingrad).

I hope you see my points and I didn't tire you with my rather long reply.

AllIsGood said:

1.Erwin Rommel

I believe that man was a true genius. His ability to exploit enemy weaknesses and devise unimaginable traps and deceptions on the spot make him a force to reckon. Unlike other generals, he relied on commanding his men on the front, being strict with his men and very demanding. It was mentioned that during the invasion of France he dismissed an officer in a matter of minutes for being slower than the rest. Despite that, his men, on the biggest extent, admired him. Psychology is one of the main factors for one who fights a war, as you all very well know, and an inspiring commander is a truly gifted one. Other than his speed in decision making and inspirational traits, Rommel also possesed another "gift". He was decisive. He wouldn't back down on his opinion, no matter the cost. Being stubborn was also one of his main drawbacks as a character, but not as a general conducting armored warfare. I want to specify here that Rommel didn't follow the doctrine of "Blitzkrieg" in any point. Maybe some similar train of thought, but not the set of tactics one can define as Blitzkrieg. I would also like to add the fact that Rommel was what we could call a true soldier. His moral values stood high even in that time of the war. The DAK were never accused of war crimes, quite the opposite, they are said to have helped allied wounded and Rommel himself had diverted supplies from his own men to a military hospital he captured.(I would like to add here that my source for this is Wikipedia, so I can't be completely sure of the validity, hence the phrace "they are said....") Finally, his victories in the African front, most of which against all odds, even though he had minimum supplies, prove his skill. His tendncy to overstretch his supply lines was his downfall though(Even though he is not one to be blamed, as the OKW diverted the majority of the supplies to the Eastern front).

I hope you see my points and I didn't tire you with my rather long reply.

Click to expand...

Length isn't a problem.

In terms of tactical skill and personal bravery, Rommel is among Germany's best commanders of the war. BUT, like many German commanders, he had extremely large strategic shortcommings...

While he won battles in North Africa, he took the Afrika Korps beyond what it was intended to by Hitler and Kesselring. All Rommel was supposed to do was to keep the British distracted while the bulk of the Wehrmacht got itself involved in the Soviet Union. Rommel's victories, however, created a window of opportunity that Rommel seized on. It turned what was essentially a minor theater into a major one, but Germany was in no way going to treat it as a major campaign theater, and most in the German High Command knew it. Rommel's victories made great propoganda, but Hitler was too focused on his personal war with Stalin.

Kesselring knew that Hitler wasn't going to commit the supplies or the men to Africa and following the Battle of Gazala, which would finally see the fall of Tobruk to German forces, ordered Rommel to remain in Libya, which was actually a good decision tactically as well as strategically because it would allow Rommel to use the tactics that had won at Gazala and other places in Libya.

Rommel, however, dismissed the orders and invaded Egypt. He ultimately found the British in a bottlenecked area near El Alamain. Flanked by the Mediterranean Sea and a depression that could not be traversed by his tanks, the flanking manuevers that had served Rommel so well were impossible. He had to attack the British 8th Army head on, which he lacked the men and material to do. Now, in all honesty, I believe Rommel was right and that Hitler SHOULD have supported him... but Rommel also should have realized that Hitler WASN'T going to do that. Kesselring's orders to remain in Libya had been made with the ability to supply Rommel's forces in mind. In this Rommel ignored direct orders and set up his own defeat at El Alamain.

And, while Rommel had the right idea on how to defeat the Allied invasion of France, he like most of Germany's generals believed the main Allied landings would be made at the Pas du Calais. Tactically it made sense. It was closer to England, allowing for Allied aircraft to remain over the battlefield for longer, and was dominated by several port cities that could be used as supply bases for the Allied Armies. But the Allies didn't land at Calais, they landed in Normandy, and as such, Rommel had guessed wrong.

Rommel and Rundstedt both would quickly realized that Normandy was the main invasion area, much of their handling there was delayed. Rommel was not even in France when the Allies landed. Believing that the bad weather would continue (the Germans didn't know about the 24 window that Eisenhower learned of) he returned to German for either his wife's birthday or their wedding anniversary. This left the German army without its battlefield commander on June 6, 1944, and because of this, the few critical opportunities to turn the Normandy campaign in their favor were missed.

And while most historians agree that Rommel was not a Nazi, they all also agree that he was not involved in the Stauffenberg plot whatsoever. He was merely implicated and forced to commit suicide based on Hitler's paranoia.

Rommel was an excellent tactician, but a poor strategist.

Trajanus said:

Von Manstein, and Rommel were both clever and effective.

Click to expand...

What about Guderian?