I used to think it was Rommel, no contest. But the more I read about Zhukov and Manstein, among others, I'm no longer sure.

Opinions?

Both were better than Rommel at most aspects of Generalship.

I'm not sure the concept "best general" has any real meaning. There certainly is no objective way to measure it. Generals at different levels of command have profoundly different roles and need different skill sets to succeed at these roles. Performance at one level is not really comparable to performance at a different level. Are we talking field commanders, force builders, theoreticians, army commanders or alliance managers? And generals didn't operate in the same conditions as their competition in this ranking.

Eisenhower was a lousy tactician, an indifferent strategist and an absolutely essential leader of the allied war effort. In a similar category with Ike is Brooke (though he had actual combat experience early in the war). Germany (and probably Russia) didn't have any equivalents. Montgomery was his own worst enemy, but was the only western allied general with the grasp to command the Normandy battle. Rommel was a great battle commander but a lousy strategist and logistician, yet he had a better concept for the defence of Normandy than what the Germans actually implemented. He would have sucked at what von Manstein did well, but probably von Manstein was not as good at what Rommel did well. Patton was both outstanding and a disaster, and in the end, over-rated in popular culture. Bradley was placed over Patton for a good reason. Zhukov definitely merits consideration, but he may not have even been the Russian's most capable general. He was just the most politically safe.

A few other names to consider:

Chuikov
Collins
Crocker
Dorman-Smith
Freyberg
Guderian
Heinrici
Horrocks
Kesselring
Mannerheim
von Manteuffel
Model
O'Conner
Rokossovsky
Simmonds
Slim
Vatutin
Wavell

Each have their strong points and shortcomings.

There probably ought to be a lot more German and Russian names on the list if you include in consideration their best corps commanders and army commanders, as I have done for the western allies, but I don't know them well enough to comment.

Most over-rated generals of the war:
Rommel and Patton. They were both better than average but Rommel was nowhere near the best in the German army, and Patton only really excelled as an operational commander. It is no coincidence that he had former subordinates promoted over him. Most over-rated Soviet general: Zhukov. He was good, but probably not the best, yet he's the one everybody has heard of. Similar in many ways to Montgomery. He benefits from the propaganda machine more than less politically acceptable Soviet generals.

Great post, DoTheMath. Lots of brilliant points.

Purely from simple-minded entertaining view I'd say best WWII military leaders from major counties were Manstein (strategical level) and Rommel (tactical level). I simply don't see any potential rivals from Allied military leaders to contest them.

But as for speaking military leaders, many of them were more or less involved with politics. Let's speak from Mannerheim, for instance: He was without doubt also politically active, being Regent of Finland as early as 1918-1919 and ending up being President of Finland in 1944-46. As Commander-in-Chief he was active in politics many ways, not least via his friend General Rudolf Walden who served some time as Minister of Defence during the war.

Political side brings us much more complicated questions. Let's take Churchill for instance, wartime Prime Minister of UK. How major part in war effort and keeping morale up in general people he had?

We do miss lots of potential great military leaders from smaller countries that most people have never heard of. Mannerheim is perhaps best-known exception of this due to his success and famous that accumulates from many different sources.

I still wouldn't say Mannerheim was great tactician or best strategist of WWII. He made many great errors, especially in Summer 1944 by not seeing signs of Soviet summer assault in Karelia and he wasn't exactly . But he was balanced and forward-looking - he didn't accept Hitler's demands to participate in Siege of Leningrad or cutting the railway of Murmansk, due to suspicion that Germany might not have enough force to "tame the bear". He also refused to take part in right-wing coups that were planned in 30's. After bloody Civil War in 1918 which splitted country in two it was a miracle that he became connective person during Winter War just 20 years later.

But let's see, he was already 77 years old when he led Finland's defense again Soviet major assault and consequently was chosen as combined President and Commander-in-Chief to lead peace talks and get the people to accept harsh terms of peace treaty which ultimately kept Finland as sovereign state without having to surrender unconditionally, unlike any other country that fought on Germany's side. And despite harsh time before, during and after WWII Finland remained democracy the whole time.

what about some of the Japanese Generals? I always thought the Kwantong army and other Jap forces were the most fearless of WW2. Not only based on the Kamakaze pilots but the Japanese armys willingness to fight to the end inflicting considerable casualties on the allies before the nuclear bombs were dropped.

Like at the Battle of Iwo Jima where the Japan forces under Tadamichi Kuribayashi infliciting more casualties then the Allies while being heavily outnumbered

I'm not going to say there were no good Japanese generals, but the fact that centuries of cultural indoctrination had Japanese soldiers refusing to surrender, and that troops dug into prepared defensive positions inflicted superior casualties on their attackers are not necessarily indicators of superior generalship. If there is evidence of one or more superior generals among the Japanese, I suspect it is to be found on the mainland.

From your other posts it appears you are very informative on Euorope and WW2, did you also study the Asian Theater of War during WW2?

After the allied trade embargo on Japan for instance how about the Battle of Singapore where the Japanese forces were out-numbered almost 4:1 but were able to force England into her greatest surrender in history . Keep in mind the British were on the defensive during the Battle of Singapore 85,000 British troops were involved in the battle and over 80,000 were captured

should also be noted that during the Battle of Singapore Winston Churchhill had this to say:

"in these circumstances the defenders (British forces) must greatly outnumber Japanese forces who have crossed the straits, and in a well-contested battle they should destroy them. There must at this stage be no thought of saving the troops or sparing the population. The battle must be fought to the bitter end at all costs. The 18th Division has a chance to make its name in history. Commanders and senior officers should die with their troops"

I'm just bringing up the Churchhill quote to show that parts of allied leadership were just as aggresive in speaking as there Axis counterparts

IMO this "cultural indoctrination" you speak of had a useful positive effect on the Japanese forces. That is right up until the summer of 1945. Kamikaze pilots and Kwantung army personal were honorable and fearless soldiers who had a significant effect on the enemy with the exception of useless Banzai charges.

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say I'm very informed about all of Europe. Other then the u-boat campaign, I mostly focus on land warfare. I'd say I know the Normandy battles best, followed by North Africa, Italy, NW Europe post-Normandy, and France 1940. After that there is a steep falloff, with a bit of exposure to aspects of the eastern front, the invasions of Poland and Norway, the Balkans pre-Barbarossa, and the Finnish Winter War.

Of the Pacific theatre, I know very little. I do have the impression that Japanese forces did better than expected by the west in Singapore, Hong Kong and the Phillipines. I know next to nothing about Japanese campaigns against the Chinese or Russians.

The troops were not all of equal quality. Nearly all of the Japanase units involved were well-trained, well equipped and had battle experience. Very few of the "British" troops were even fully trained, and none had any signficant combat experience. Some were of suspect loyalty, and actually joined the Japanese forces after surrender. The Japanese had tanks; the British had none, and had inadequate anti-tank weapons. The Japanese had air superiority, which led to a major advantage in battlefield intelligence

No question. However, I believe it also had a very serious negative effect on Japanese forces as a whole. And that was how they regarded foreigners and prisoners of war.

Does this mean the same thing as "Waffen SS were honourable soldiers", ie. the implication that professional fighting troops were not guilty of the excesses of certain special rear-area units? I'm not sure that I agree with either proposition. The Kwantung Army was the home of the notorious Unit 731

Granted, the Kwantung Army wasn't known for the same scale of torture, rape, massacre and abuse of POW's as the China Expeditionary Army, but that isn't saying very much.

Perhaps the Japanese forces were honorable by their own standards, but my incompletely informed view is that they were not honourable by mine.

to address these points. IMO both the allied and axis forces were guilty of war crimes. As for the scale of the crimes I could see a debate but either way you can not escape the fact that crimes were committed by both sides.

What I mean by honorable in regards to the Japanese forces is there willingness to fight to the end even more so then the fanatical German SS soldiers in which a notable majority was willing to surrender to the allies with the exception of Russian forces.

Early on in the Asian theater of War the Japanese forces pulled off some upset victories with the likes of Singapore, yes they did have excellent training but its not as if the British Forces had no tanks. The allied forces at Singapore both outnumbered and out-resourced the Japan forces. One notable study of the Battle of Singapore is the possibility that Arther Percival (British General) was actually bluffed into surrendering his forces at Singapore . This was due to excellent negotiating skills and tactics by the Japanese generals IMO.

Japan forced the surrender of the largest British Military force in her history at Singapore, along with countless scenarios of being outnumbered yet inflicting more casualties on the enemy. For these reason's and others I consider the Japanese High Command to be amongst the best leadership of WW2

Also If there were a "which country had the most effective basic solider during WW2" thread I would say Japan

Quite true but of little relevance due to the distintinctly different nature and quantity of these crimes.

It is a fact that I see no reason to escape, because there is no debate that the nature, origin and scale of the warcrimes is clearly distinct. Even if you include the use of atomic weapons and the firebombing of civilian populations as warcrimes (to do so would be an interesting form of revisionism) the Germans and the Japanese killed many more illegally than the western allies. I know of no documented cases about western allied forces systematically detaining and exterminating whole cultures, no organized use of prisoners for medical experiments, no deliberate mass starvations of POWs, no mass killings of prisoners hours after capture by troops not immediately involved in the fighting, no mass rapes of enemy civilians, no reprisals by mass execution of civilians, and no systemic use of POWs as slave labor in a manner contrary to the health and safety provisons of the Geneva Conventions.

What distinguishes Japanese war crimes from German war crimes from Soviet war crimes from western allied war crimes is their impetus. Japanese war crimes are essentially a product of dominant centuries-old cultural attitudes near-ubiquitous among the officer class, in the context of near totalitarian control. German war crimes are a result of the combination of a new, extreme ideology embraced by those in political power and by a minority throughout the forces, layered on top of some older, more pervasive cultural prejudices, in the context of totalitarian control. Soviet war crimes were the product of the most extreme and ruthless totalitarian control giving licence to extreme acts of revenge. Western war crimes, such as they were, because they just don't appear on the same scale, were usually not the result of the nature of the high command, but were usually the sort that occur in all armies, committed by troops under stress.

Commission of certain war crimes was among the unofficial German war aims. The Germans had units formed for the specific purpose of committing war crimes. The Japanese had units whose mandate included the commission of war crimes. The Japanese and Soviets had standard operating procedures that were war crimes. None of this can be said of the western allies.

Your concept of honour is different than mine.

OK, please tell me how many British tanks actually took part in the battle of Singapore, what models of tank these were and to which units they belonged. (By tank I mean a tracked armoured fighting vehicle armed with a gun intended for direct fire on targets including other tanks. I don't mean armoured car, self-propelled artillery, tracked carriers armed with Bren guns or AT rfles, or tankettes - "tanks" that don't have an anti-tank gun, just machine guns and/or rifles. I mean something that would redress the battle tank balance.)

I expect the British had some universal carriers, and may have had armoured cars or tankettes. All of these are sometimes confused with tanks. Indeed the Vickers light tank was officially designated a "tank", even though it had no gun.

At the start of the battle, the only resources the British had more of were food, potable water, guns and ammunition suitable only for destroying armoured warships, rifles, rifle ammunition and warm bodies. In these categories the Japanese were not suffering shortages relative to requirments. The Japanese had an overwhelming advantage in aircraft, tanks, and skilled infantry. At the time of surrender the British had insufficient water for immediate needs. While the Japanese had begun to suffer shortages of some sorts of ammunition, the British had totally expended certain types of ammunition.

Japan achieved the surrender of the largest force under British command ever to surrender. (The difference in phrasing is significant.) The Japanese command performance at Singapore was quite good, in that it maximized the advantages they had. Is consistent competence the same as outstanding performance? Judging from general military history, perhaps it is.

The Japanese had good results when they enjoyed overhelming force quality superiority and good casualty ratios when defending prepared positions. Against the Russians in 1939 and 1945, or the British in Burma, they didn't do so well.

Oh wow. That's a whole other debate. How do you measure "most effective" at the level of the basic soldier? I've seen clams that in jungle fighting abilities of private soldiers in the Pacific / south-east Asia theatre, the Australians > British > Americans > Japanese.

Fanatics are great at dying for their country. But you probably know the quote made famous in "Patton".

In terms of honor Ill start this off with Japanese General Tadamichi Kuribayashi who refused to permit banzai charges at the Battle Of Iwo Jima. The General would also defend the island for over a month with minimal forces against a US garrison which completely cut off the supply route to the Island.

Kuribayashi's defense saved quite a few civilian deaths that later occurred due to allied bombing of mainland Japan once Iwo Jima was secured . It was guerrilla warfare by the Japanese that led to more U.S casualites in the battle of Iwo Jima. In terms of inflicting damage the Japanese forces Vietcong like tactics proved to be highly effective. Much of the US High Command was shocked at the amount of allied casualties by the end of the battle of Iwo Jima. Even U.S General Holland Smith (commanding General at Iwo Jima) was impressed with the tactics of Kuribayashi

As for the Battle of Singapore I assume you view the victory as expected for the axis powers? Churchill himself was "devastated" by the loss at Singapore and I think its safe to say most did not see it coming.

OK, so not acting like a typical Japanese was doing the honorable thing. I think you are making my point for me.

I think this is the first time I have ever seen Japanese tactics at Iwo Jima described as guerrilla warfare. I'm sorry, but the term does not apply. The Japanese used tactics more in common with WWI trench warfare: Build extensive interlocking, mutually supportive fortifications, hide in your protected holes during the preparatory bombardment, rush to your gun positions to repell the attack using artillery and automatic weapons, and conduct night-time raids on the enemy.

Guerrilla warfare is characterized by the use of irregular, lightly armed troops using extensive mobility and not being tied to any one location. They do not use field artillery or tanks. They do not limit themselves to one base of operations. The Japanese defenders were regular forces equipped with tanks and artillery very much tied to specific fixed defences.

What "Vietcong like tactics"? The Vietcong reacted to a US offensive by leaving an area entirely, then reinfiltrating when the offensive was over. Do not confuse the Vietcong's use of tunnels for local concealment with the sort of defensive positions the Japanese had on Iwo Jima.

The Japanese expected to win. They had an accurate opposing force estimate and a fairly good idea of British intentions and capabilities. They had plans that used this. Before the assualt on Singapore itself, they had mapped the locations of most or all the major British units, and planned their assault accordingly. The British had poor intelligence regarding Japanese forces, intentions or capabilities. They had no idea where the Japanese attack on Singapore's perimeter would come, and they guessed wrong. Under the circumstances, the possibility that the British may have been surprised by losing doesn't mean the Japanese victory is objectively surprising.

In regards to Iwo Jima Japan General Kuribayashi composed six, "Courageous Battle Vows" to be handed out to soldiers one of which were

6. We shall continue to harass the enemy with guerrilla tactics even if only one of us remains alive

In the beginning of the battle this was not the case but Japan had no way of getting reinforcements or supplies. So they absolutely resorted to Guerrilla tactics as there force of over 22k troops deteriorated to under 1k, army personal would hide in underground shelters where American shelling could not reach while waiting to attack. in sort of a hit and run fashion

I want to also add a point of why I thought the Japanese troops and civilians were honorable people, many of them like General Kuribayashi lived a Bushido lifestyle that is in the way of a Samurai , a stark contrast to the Nazi lifestyle. You said you disagree and that's ok but for centuries the Samurai would rather commit seppuku (ritual suicide) then surrender to the enemy. I find this to be impressive.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido...20th_centuries

So, once effective resistance had ceased, he wanted the few survivors to resort to guerrilla tactics. That's fine. That is not the nature of the organized reisitance, but rather what was supposed to follow it.

It does not follow that the final stages of operations characterize the operations as a whole, nor that his intention for the final phase was realized.

As I said, the hiding in caves during bombardments and then coming out to fight is more akin to trench warfare (which is about the farthest one can get fom guerrilla tactics). To comply with Kuribayashi's instructions (asuming they have been properly translated), would have required the survivors to disperse from the caves they had been using during the organized defence.

Do not confuse hit and run tactics with guerrilla warfare. Hit and run forms a part of several types of tactics (e.g. Parthian tactics), and is only one component of guerrilla warfare. The most important characteristic perhaps is detaching the armed body from dependency on a fixed military base of operations.

So under the bastardized version of Bushido used in the 20th century to manipulate the Japanese populace to the will of the warlords, it is dishonouring to be defeated in battle, regardless of circumstances. The only way to regain one's honour was to commit ritual suicide. (This is obviously a losing moral strategy in the long run.) It was considered acceptable to kill, torture and otherwise abuse persons who seemed to be without honour. This would include lower classes, civilians, and foreigners. This led the Japanese to treat enemy civilians and POWs terribly, despite Japan being a signatory of (but not a ratifier of) the Geneva Conventions. Bushido was a code that might have had positive practical application in feudal times, but the late 19h century and 20th century adaptations were an anachronistic moral monstrosity.

The Bushido concept of the superiority of the honorable warrior to all other people, coupled with traditional Japanese attitudes to foreigners, resulted in an outlook towards others eerily similar to the Nazis' views on racial superiority. The distinction between the two approaches seems to be limited to the area of self-conduct, not the treatment of others.

You should check out Bushido: The Soul of Japan by Inazo Nitobe. It was published back in 1900 (during the Empire of Japan) and described the lifestyle of the Samurai. Specifically Nitobe found in Bushido, "the Way of the Warrior, the sources of the virtues most admired by his people: rectitude, courage, benevolence, politeness, sincerity, honor, loyalty and self-control.

We should also not forget the tense times of WW2, the Japanese people knew of the Interment camps of there people and racism against Japanese happening in the US during the war which lead to feelings of animosity toward the allied powers.

I will vehemently disagree that the Japanese were as "bad" as there German allies. Remember most of the Nazi leadership willingly surrendered at the end of the war, Himmler and Goring even betrayed Hitler. I believe this goes to show a inherent falseness in the Nazi system. Meaning many of the Nazi leaders were only interested in pursing there own goals above the country

Yeah those feelings of animosity toward the allied powers got so bad that they eventually attacked the U.S.. Oh wait, it was the other way round.

Also, I wouldn't be all that surprised if most of the Japanese population were totally unaware of internment given their isolation.

Your romanticized view of Bushido seems to totally ignore the historical record. As you point out, Nitobe published an historical overview of Busido throuthght the past centuries. What he described was not what was the mainstream practice 1.5 generations later.

What? The internment of enemy aliens justifies the bayonetting of injured prisoners?

You really should read this link very carefully.

From the point of view of western allied POW survival, the Japanese were 7.5 times as bad as the Germns. From the point of view of civilian deaths the Japanese may have been worse then the Germans.

I am not sure war crimes committed out of misguided devotion to the Emperor are any less evil than war crimes committed for personal gain.

It's true they did not have gas chambers and seek to eliminate entire populations. But the war on Chinese civilians in the 1930s was slaughter -- poison gas, the "rape of Nanking." A prof. once told me there used to be indigenous people in the Japanese islands who were not ethnically Japanese. They do not exist anymore. More hush-hush than what happened to American Indians.

The effectiveness of the German military was in significant part due to their warrior traditions. Most of what you like in Japan you can find parallels to in Germany. Many important Japanese surrendered, plenty left to hang after the war. And a number of Nazi principals committed suicide. German militarism came before Nazis, but they still obeyed.

I agree with the person who used the term "romanticize" in reference to your views. We can be awed or respectful by how tough someone is or how they stick to a code, but militarist traditions are still very prone to supporting all kinds of massacres and genocides. The U.S. Air Force ethic of the professional soldier makes it highly effective, but vanishingly few refused to make civilians strategic targets in Korea and Vietnam.

It should be pretty clear that a Samurai serving his master no matter what, while it may be a code and you can call it honorable, but relinquishing one's conscience is really bad and enabled most atrocities.

I feel the need to address one of DoTheMath posts in which he disagreed with my view of how the Japanese soliders were honorable and courageous

DotheMath said "Does this mean the same thing as "Waffen SS were honourable soldiers", ie. the implication that professional fighting troops were not guilty of the excesses of certain special rear-area units? I'm not sure that I agree with either proposition. The Kwantung Army was the home of the notorious Unit 731

Granted, the Kwantung Army wasn't known for the same scale of torture, rape, massacre and abuse of POW's as the China Expeditionary Army, but that isn't saying very much.

Perhaps the Japanese forces were honorable by their own standards, but my incompletely informed view is that they were not honourable by mine"

One very ironic fact that I am sure you are aware of DTM is that the head of that "infamous" unit 731 Shiro Ishii was not punished for war crimes. In fact he was given total immunity and eventually worked with the United States. Oddly enough the Soviets wanted to prosecute (hang or shoot) this guy, but the US put Intel and there own desire to pursue strength ahead of morality.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shir%C5%8D_Ishii#Immunity

Again The fact the CIA (originally the OSS) and US army worked with German and Japanese forces after the war was to gain intel and use it against the USSR during the cold war or to gain information on germ warfare or other weapons. We can argue over the morality of these choices by the US

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1301306.stm

So what this has to do with my opinion on Japanese soldiers during WW2 is that morality was not an issue with either side, this is simply the case during a time of War and of course during the cold war. I agree with the fact that Unit 731 committed war crimes that US forces did not commit yet in the end the U.S employed those same members of Unit 731.

Not to mention The actions of Japanese troops at Nanking where many rapes were reported, these same rape allegations occurred on a large scale with US soldiers in Vietnam. These things are going to happen during armend conflict and its unfortunate but there is no sense in saying the standard Japanese solider was brainwashed or evil. B/c then you would also have to say the same about the standard US army troop which makes no sense

My final point would be we could find both honorless and honorable soldiers within the ranks of the Kwantung army and US army during WW2. The many Audie Murphys of the US army who risked there life while inflicting mass casualties on the enemy, just like the brave Japanese soldiers who gave there life partly b/c of the code of the Samurai, soldiers like Kiyoshi Ogawa. Ogawas actions which inflicted mass casualties on the military enemy should not be compared to for example the actions of Al Queda who targeted mass civilians. Note this major difference between a Kamikaze pilot and a 9/11 Hijacker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiyoshi_Ogawa

I do think that its a good outcome US forces got to Ishii before the reds did. Its almost a sure thing the Soviets would have at least gained intel from Ishii before killing him, at worst employ him. In the end I guess the only difference in Ishii being detained by the US could be the high quality of life he received from the gov.

There is currently a thread active in NVG titled "View:Why is everybody a Troll in this forum?" After first OOINk and now this latest, I wonder if the thread doesn't really belong in this forum. (Edit: Thread has now been removed.)

I mean, equating the criminal conduct of some US service members in Vietnam with the Rape of Nanking*, and claiming that granting immunity for intelligence-gathering purposes put the US on an equal moral footing with the perpetrators of those criminal acts and others...

It has moved well past naive romanticism, through ridiculousness, and is now in the realm of extreme offensiveness.

Being this thread is asking folks who do you think the "Best WW2 General" was I am talking from a military perspective in terms of military results itt so calm down. Yes members of Japans military committed multiple war crimes during WW2 I have said this numerous times which is why your recent post is so confusing to me.

Look at my avatar if you have some sort of thoughts about me on where I stand on WW2. For instance my posting is in no way similar to the poster "okayokayitsok" who seems to like Hitler. You are way off here Dothemath, there are multitudes of ex US service men who acknowledge the darker aspects of both Vietnam and WW2, this is basic history I feel.

though you are entitled to your unnecessary language towards myself, I would appreciate a constructive response to my post .

there are ww2 memorials all over Japan constantly visited by family members today like Nagasaki and Hiroshima to say a few, they are a part of history and they deserve respect.

I would like to hear your opinion on this, do you think it is ok?

The Yasukuni Shrine was created in 1869 by Emperor Meiji to commemorate the individuals who had died in service of the Empire of Japan during the Meiji Restoration.[1] The shrine lists the names, origin, birthdate and place of death of 2,466,532 men, women and children and spans from the Boshin War of 1867 to World War II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine

Current Prime Minister of Japan Shinzō Abe has visited the Shrine on Numerous occasions.



Pictured above is a Kamikaze Pilot Commemoration Statue

I don't know nearly enough to have an opinion on the OP, but this:



was an excellent read, and Fraser speaks of Slim with very high regard.

Fighter_Aces245#$% has won 234 consecutive games as the Axis in the Classic WW2 board game Axis n Allies...that's pretty good.