Two things need to be defined here. What is meant by "best," and what is meant by "commander?"
By "best" do we mean who was most effective in his assigned position? Or do we mean who had flashy victories?
By "commander" what level of command are we talking about? Theater Commander? AG/Fleet commander? Army commander? It makes a difference because the nature of the job is different. Patton, for example, had spectacular battlefield exploits as an Army commander, but his area of responsibility was rather narrow when compared to those of, say, Eisenhower or Mac Arthur or general Marshall.
If "best" means most effective in achieving an assigned task, then I have to say that I believe that General Eisenhower gets that nod. Of all the Allied Theater Commanders he had, by far, the most difficult of tasks to perform: hold together an Alliance, satisfy politicians of two countries, deal with super-egos, plan and execute the largest amphibious operation ever attempted, and then drive halfway across a continent. He accomplished all of those tasks with efficiency and professionalism. No other Allied commander of comparable rank (i.e. Theater command) had such a task.
As for "commander" lets break that one down into various levels of command, because the scope of responsibility changes at each level.
SUPREME COMMAND LEVEL
General Marshall. Marshall was the architect of the American force that eventually helped to win the war. He strongly advocated a cross-channel invasion and was instrumental in getting resources diverted to constructing Landing craft because he recognized the critical role amphibious warfare would play. He also worked well with his British counterparts.
THEATER COMMAND LEVEL
1. General Eisenhower, for reasons stated above.
2. Admiral Nimitz handled the Central Pacific area brilliantly. He was only in command a few months when the Coral Sea and Midway actions occurred, yet he showed a quiet determination that was a trademark characteristic of his throughout the war. He expertly handled his subordinate Fleet commanders Halsey and Spruance. Although there were many bloody battles in the Central Pacific area, he pressed on with his twin goals of island hopping, and bringing the Japanese Fleet and Naval air forces to battle to destroy them.
3. Marshal Zhukov The Soviet Command structure was different, but I think Zhukov fits in here. He was truly the architect of the Soviet comeback after the defeats of 1941 and early 1942. He was an excellent planner and strategist and knew the value of logistics.
ARMY GROUP/FLEET/AIR ARM LEVEL
1. Field Marshal Montgomery Monty had many of the same problems as Commander 21st AG that Ike had on his level. Monty invaded France in command of both British and American forces. A lot of American officers despised him. Nevertheless, I think he handled the AG quite well, even if his rhetoric frequently outpaced events. He was under enormous pressure during the weeks that followed D Day. Although I find him a vain, arrogant and self-serving man, I must, as a student of WWII history give the guy credit. He was in charge of Allied ground forces when the great breakout and pursuit across France occurred.
2. Air Marshal Arthur Harris I probably surprise you with this one. But, remember, my definition of best is the measure of effectiveness. Harris took over Bomber Command in Feb 42, at a time when the RAF was re-evaluating its doctrine, and at a time when the new heavy Lancaster Bomber was coming on-line. Harris took the doctrine of "area bombing" and ran with it. For over three years Bomber Command attacked German cities by night, forcing the Germans to divert significant resources to defend against it. At their peak, German flak defences employed more than one million people, a significant investment. Also, the Germans devoted significant research and material into improving night fighters. Harris remained steadfast in pursuing the "area bombing" doctrine. Some say he was obsessed. Nevertheless, the destruction of German cities and the dislocation of their population contributed to the war effort in no small manner.
3. Admiral Spruance. His handling of the US 5th Fleet in the Central Pacific campaigns was superb. A mere Cruiser Division commander at war's outset, he made the crucial decisions at Midway that led to the decisive defeat of the Japanese force there. Spruance is truly one of the unsung heroes of the war.
ARMY LEVEL
1. General Patton Patton's achievements speak for themselves. He led the breakout at Avranches, dashed across France, helped destroy many German formations in the Falaise pocket, relieved Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. He made errors, and pissed a lot of people off. But I don't think there was a more effective army level commander in the Allied force.
2. General Slim Slim is a general of administrative genius, a brilliant defensive general, and was a excellent offensive commander. He had the ability to inspire his soldiers to excel in their performance. He was a role model. He was admired and respected by his subordinates, peers, and superiors. He motivated and challenged his subordinates and was instrumental in improving their morale. Slim told his soldiers what he expected from them and they in turn did it.He recognised his own faults and quickly adapted.
3. General "Pete" Quesada. A surprise, I am sure. General Quesada commanded the 9th Tactical Airforce, based in England. What is significant about General Quesada is the fact that he recognized early on that the D Day invasion forces would need dedicated, close in air support to succeed. He was a strong proponent of the P-47 fighter and the B-25 and B-26 medium bombers, because they could provide that support. Unlike other air commanders (notable Harris and Spaatz) Quesada had no problem with subordinating his command to the ground forces' needs. His forces were very effective in providing what Patton called "my mobile artillery."
4. General Krueger Mac Arthur got the glory. Krueger, in command of US 6th Army, did the work.
who was the best Allied general?
question for WalterS
Wasn't Krueger a German citizen when he enlisted? Do you think that might have been part of the reason he was unknown, that and the fact Macarthur was his boss?
kordts wrote:
No, I don't think Krueger's German ancestry had anything to do with it. MacArthur was the type who just sucked up all the oxygen, leaving little for his able subordinates, including Admiral Daniel Barbey who planned and executed all the amphibious "end runs" in New Guinea.
Wasn't Krueger a German citizen when he enlisted? Do you think that might have been part of the reason he was unknown, that and the fact Macarthur was his boss?
No, I don't think Krueger's German ancestry had anything to do with it. MacArthur was the type who just sucked up all the oxygen, leaving little for his able subordinates, including Admiral Daniel Barbey who planned and executed all the amphibious "end runs" in New Guinea.
allied generals
I have conflicting emotions about Macarthur. He was a military genius who was very careful with the lives of his troops. If you look at casualty figures, he was certainly no butcher. Yet his vanity and hubris made him very unlikable. He wasn't helped by his staff, a lot of them were second rate, yet he stuck with them. He wasn't caught with his pants down in the P.I., Dec. 8, he just didn't respond to the info coming in. A lot of what happened didn't need to. That being said, the FilAms conducted a skillful and costly, to the Japanese, fighting withdrawal down the Bataan peninsula. His New Guinea campaign was quite brilliant as well.
Re: Best allied commander
You got to be kidding, my granduncle died while 'loafing' his way through the west wall during early 1945.Unteroffizier_Tyler wrote:THe best mustve been Ike or Zhukov. I dont believe monty was much better than the army slop they gave the soldiers. The british didnt do a whole lot after D-Day. They loafed their way all the way to the Elbe. Im sure they were good soldiers and were probably sick of the war but if their commanders wouldve committed them more things might be alittle different.
Respectfully, what is your opinion of general William Slim, the commander of the forgotten army?WalterS wrote:Two things need to be defined here. What is meant by "best," and what is meant by "commander?"
I believe that General Eisenhower gets that nod. Of all the Allied Theater Commanders he had, by far, the most difficult of tasks to perform: hold together an Alliance, satisfy politicians of two countries, deal with super-egos, plan and execute the largest amphibious operation ever attempted, and then drive halfway across a continent. He accomplished all of those tasks with efficiency and professionalism. No other Allied commander of comparable rank (i.e. Theater command) had such a task.
I think Slim was a very fine and able commander. My evaluation of General Eisenhower in no way casts aspersions on anyone else. General Slim did face some unique challenges, also. As commander of 14th Army he successfully defended Assam against a major Japanese offensive in 1944, then launched his own attack which culminated in the liberation of Rangoon, Burma in May 1945.
If you wish to add him to the list of Army Level Commanders, I think that would be fine.
If you wish to add him to the list of Army Level Commanders, I think that would be fine.
"Uncle Bill" Slim makes the short list as well. I believe his 14th Army was the biggest allied army in WWII. He is like Krueger, did a great job, which if it was in the ETO, would have got him much more press. not that they were glory hounds, but they would be much better known. I confess, I stumbled upon him while not looking for him. He had many different nationalities under him, huge logistics and terrain problems, and at the bottom of the allied priority list. Yet, he and the 14th fought brilliantly. He deserves to be better known.
Cheers, Jeff.
Cheers, Jeff.
Yes, he does deserve to be better known, especially in my country. The job in hand was immense. He had to winkle out the Japanese from Burma. One by one if necessary. There would be no mass capitulation of the enemy, unlike the battles in Europe. The Japanese fought to the death, and showed no mercy. The battles were fought over a land mass the size of western Europe, in the most inhospitable conditions. Mother nature had to be tamed, but was never conquered. The Enemy could live on rice, and when that run out, they ate human flesh! No steak and chips for the Brits out here! The British were unprepared for jungle warfare and morale was dangerously low. Roads and railway lines had to be built.The British intelligence system was almost non-existent. Slim was last in the que for logistics support. So as you can see, he was up to his neck in whale shit. But he over come these problems, and delivered victory!
Slim is a general of administrative genius, a brilliant defensive general, and was a excellent offensive commander. He had the ability to inspire his soldiers to excel in their performance. He was a role model. He was admired and respected by his subordinates, peers, and superiors. He motivated and challenged his subordinates and was instrumental in improving their morale. Slim told his soldiers what he expected from them and they in turn did it.He recognised his own faults and quickly adapted
In my opinion, he's one of the very best. He looked the part as well!
Slim is a general of administrative genius, a brilliant defensive general, and was a excellent offensive commander. He had the ability to inspire his soldiers to excel in their performance. He was a role model. He was admired and respected by his subordinates, peers, and superiors. He motivated and challenged his subordinates and was instrumental in improving their morale. Slim told his soldiers what he expected from them and they in turn did it.He recognised his own faults and quickly adapted
In my opinion, he's one of the very best. He looked the part as well!
-
Incorporeal One
- Member
- Posts: 22
- Joined: 14 May 2004, 06:43
- Location: Maryland, USA formerly Krakow, Poland.
Hogwash.Andy H wrote:USA_Finn wrote:is amoung the worse. To be frank, Monte cost millions of lives in Europe, Britian, the US, and yes in Germany. Monte prolonged the war through incompetence and egotismMillions?
Though you have stated that you hold a strong dislike for Monty your logic is somewhat out of tilt.
Monty's decision to build up overwhelming force at El Alamien helped save Allied lives and his vital input into the planning of DDay also helped save lives. Monty also planned & commanded the invasion of Sicily in 1943.
Like I have said many times he had his faults like every man, but many jump on the bandwagon of popular belief without reading anything to contry.
Patton had his 'Arnhem' so to speak during the campaign in the Lorraine. After his much celebrated dash across France, Patton's army was ordered on the defensive yet he decided to keep attacking. He had exhausted men and very few supplies, and yet he attacked well prepared German defences for several months, which cost thousands of US lives for minimal gains.
The tactic to deny the possibility of a valid conclusion about Monty due to 'bandwaggoning' belongs in junior high debate and should not be accepted. My opinion about Monty is based on careful study and research. Wrong? Perhaps.
Consider this. The 'millions saved' is not a wild exaggeration. Just one example makes the case. How many lives would have been saved without the Dresden fire bombing had the war ended in 1944?
Montgomery saved lives through his generalship at El Alamien? Whose lives? British Tommies? IMO Monty, in net, cost lives at El Alamien.
Defeating the enemy through early victory is a grand means to save lives, to stop suffering, to end the Nazi madness. But not Monty. True to form, he plodded in Africa and failed to press forward for the complete victory, the total destruction of the German African Army, immediately after El Alamien. The ultimate sin, through Ultra he knew the dire circumstance of the enemy. The Germans were whipped. The time demanded, it screamed, for aggressive pursuit. Battle doctrine supports this position. The opportunity for decisive victory was at hand. German and American and British battle doctrine held to the Clauswitz's dictum that the attack is the most effective means to destroy the enemy armies and bring about victory. The over cautous Monty cost lives.
A credit to Montgomery. IMO he was the man of the hour in North Africa in 1942 for different reason. Montgomery was a gifted organizer. Monte raised the moral of the Army by instilling confidence in them and by selecting rock solid commanders. Monty provided great service to the Allies in these matters.
To clarify, this is not an an endorsement either for the reckless attack philosophy employed by the Soviets. Or the Brits in the Somme. Earlier I expressed a deep respect for MacArthur's economy in victory. Yet MacArthur took the appropriate high risks when and won. Monty only failed in his one ‘bold’ effort.
The comparision of Patton's attacks at the West Wall to Monty's monumental failures is laughable, in the big picture. The Germans lucky enough to get out of Falaise would agree.[/quote]
Maybe I'm mising your point but what has this to do with Montgomery. Are you suggesting that Montgomery had the power to end the war by the end of 1944?Consider this. The 'millions saved' is not a wild exaggeration. Just one example makes the case. How many lives would have been saved without the Dresden fire bombing had the war ended in 1944?
The reason for this tentative anology was to show that all 'great' Generals have there Arnhem's so to speak. Everyone remembers Pattons dramatic dash across France, the drive to Bastogne etc but they 'forget' his plodding and inept campaign in the Lorriane area which cost thousands of US soldiers lives.The comparision of Patton's attacks at the West Wall to Monty's monumental failures is laughable, in the big picture. The Germans lucky enough to get out of Falaise would agree
Unless I'm mistaken the Allies did win a complete victory in North Africa. Are you assuming that if Montgomery had been more aggressive the campaign in North Africa would have been over earlier. If so where's your proof?.True to form, he plodded in Africa and failed to press forward for the complete victory, the total destruction of the German African Army, immediately after El Alamien.
Andy H