Who was the best General?

I dont know anything on him post war but, I agree he was a good choice. He did do pretty well earlier but fell in disfavor with Hitler due to listening to creeps like Bormann, and Goebbles, whom Brauchitsch hated and never trusted.

I would have picked him too

 

oops...i posted a response to a post...posted by "Gibson" thinking it was directed to me. But it wasn't, so i deleted my post. Sorry for the mix up.

 

C. Evans, like you, I thought the article made some good over-all points, but I think the author exaggerated in some areas... stated his argument a little stronger perhaps than reality.

I admit I'm quibbling here, but I think his 850K number on the Germans' losses at Stalingrad is overstated. Most figures I've seen are in the 250-350K range. Maybe the 'inflation' is partly due to inclusion of Axis satellites' losses. Including German forces not actually in Stalingrad but in the whole area encircled by Operation Uran, it might go even higher, but 850,000 still seems a bit high.

And, I had the same thought as you about the 'elite forces' point. Definitely, many top German units were wiped out in the East. But the Western Allies did face some elite units also. I imagine that a tally of East vs. West deployment of Panzer and Waffen-SS units would still be heavily weighted against the Soviets, though.

You're right of course to point out the material aid of the West. Western sources have tended to exaggerate this, though. I think it was on the Wargamer site (or a link from there) that I saw a very detailed article, accounting for exactly what the West sent to CCCP and when, and what was actually received and how it was used. Much of what was sent never got there, or never got deployed... a classic 'your check is in the mail' scenario.

Both Keegan and Glantz have addressed this issue. Going from memory, the critical items they cited were food, trucks, felt overboots (made to Soviet specification in the USA for winter use), and an important raw material I don't remember... maybe aluminum?

Both these authors downplay the value of Western aid in the form of actual fighting gear... some, like the infamous Grant Tank (Soviet nickname: Grave-site of Seven Brothers), was inferior material the Allies didn't want anyway. Some of it was very unsuited for Russian conditions. The Soviets did like the Jeep, though, and Zhukov's staff plane was a C-47. The duce-and-a-half trucks were a huge contribution.

Back to the original point; I think the author of the article was reacting to an overall Western impression that we defeated the Germans and the Soviets played a minor role. He's right to say this is a very wrong-headed idea, and I think he's also right to say it is a very widespread idea.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Otto:
I just had to interject here:

anyone arguing about the role of the USA vs the USSR should read this article posted in our Archives by Eric Margolis here:
http://www.ww2n.com/archives/art-20010426.shtml

He wrote this article for a major Toronto Newspaper a few years ago. It is very interesting and enlightening. I'm not going to say what my opinion is, just read the article and tell me what you think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think i agree with that article for the most part.

 

Dear Alath, another one of your great postings, and I agree with what you say.

I have a VERY low opinion of Keegen because he is or seems, so anti-American, and is way too biased on his writings. He is as bad or worse than Americas new superstar of an author: Stephan Ambrose.

I, if I ever met Keegen, could easily argue him down on the aide we sent to Russia, for the simple fact that my father, then aged 18, was one of the many men who flew US Aircraft to Rusia for their lendlease of these weapons.

Something I have never seen mention of an any history book, is that we gave the Soviets, I dont know how many B-17 bombers (my dad having been part of a one of the crews that flew them to Soviet Airfields.

My Grandfather was a Merchant Marine Captain (you will see info on him posted here soon, and why its so special) who also ferried all kinds of raw war materials to Murmansk, and Archangel, if im not mistaken.

He transported anything from tires for GMC Transport trucks, to Tanks, to Aircobra fighters, to wheat, medicines, overshoes, oil, guns, etc etc.

Its my opinion that Keegen and Ambrose, dont know what the hect they are talking about. I also had 3 uncles in that war, and my grandmother serving during the war. She was in charge of a group of Wasps, and also served as an air raid warden.

I guess that im just trying to say that the author of that report, should do more research before spouting off. Lord knows, I do it all too often resultig in opening my mouth, inserting foot and leg into it.

We all know that the Soviets faced the bigger part of the German and Axis armies, but it should be mentioned that they would not have won the war, if not for all the help we gave them.

They were forced to move all or most of their surviving industry to or beyond the Urals. That would not have happened, had they been winning. We know that this was to get them to safety beyong the range of German Aircraft.

Had the Soviets not had our GMCs for transportation, they could not have had as many men to use as they needed, within a decent amount of time. The Germans most likely, could have just kept on chewing them up and spitting out their bones, for breakfast.

Had it not been for American vehicles, the soviets would have HAD to build more transport trucks, instead of T-34s and JS-1s.

Had it not been for the Aluminum we sent there, they could not have built as many aircraft as they did, or had the greater numbers available when they did.

We also sent them countless millions of all caliber of artillery shells. Had they not had the shells to fire from their fieldpieces, a good many attacks that did succeed, might have ended for the Soviets; in disaster.

It is beyond me to ever say the Soviets did not have more than their fair share of action, and did their share of fighting. We know a bit of what they had to endure and thats for sure but, it simply boils down to, without our help, they simply did not have the resources to win. I think they possibly could have developed a defense line (like the Siegfried Line--the Maginot Line--the Gustav Line, for examples). Without aide, thats the best I can see the Soviets being able to do, and im not downplaying their fighting abilities at all. If a soldier does not have anything to eat, he cannot fight for very long--can he? As the old saying goes: "A soldier travels on his stomach".

I totally agree with what the Soviets said about the Grant tanks, they WERE nothing but pieces of out-dated junk! One hit from a small caliber shell, would often pop out some of the rivits, and they would wound or kill the crews. Shermans (Ronsons--I remembered) were also used in Russia, and were also not liked. Lees were used there also, and were liked, despite their lack of armor protection and heavy weaponry. These were often used for scouting duties and small action support.

These were reliable, more manouverable, and were fast. Better than an armored car, but not as good as a medium tank. By the way, they only had crews of 5 men, no room for more.

If they had a crew of 7, two would have to permanently be stationed outside the tank, maybe as MG gunners perhapse?

I also agree with the assessment that the number figure foir German casualties at Stalingrad, were placed way too high, but could also be attributed to Soviet Propaganda. Now, in the fighting in that area and along the Stalingrad front, was estimated at being almost 1 million German and Axis losses. This includes Killed, Wounded, Missing, and Captured soldiers.

What amazes me is, that its almost never told that way, because they dont want the Germans to get credit where credit is due; and thats a bad shame.

Another thing which is a proven fact is, that the Soviets often shot German Officers after they surrendered. Look what happened to those thousands of Polish Officers shot and hap hazzardly buried in the Katyn forrest. Someone also bungled that sick "job". Then to later try to blame it on the Germans thats proposterous (spelling?)

I know a few Soviet ww2 vets, one even lives here in Corpus Christi. I also know many ww2 German vets too. I listen to what they say about eachother, and believe me, the Keegen and Ambrose type authors, have it wrong.

I will never spend one penny, on either authors books. James Lucas is another author, who lets his fantasies run wild at times, but I do actually like some of what he writes, even if sometimes it does read a bit like science fiction.

Sorry for my long tirade...

[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

 

My vote goes to Hitler - his bad decisions saved a lot of time that would otherwise have been spent fighting far better German commanders.

Chris Ray

 

I agree with Carl and Alath the author does seem to want to overemphasize the Russian war effort and downplay D-Day to The Bulge. He neglects to mention that Stalin was demanding for a second front since 1941 and pleading with FDR to get in the war before December 7 came around.

850,000 men lost at Stalngrad is outrageous. If the Germans had 850,000 men there in the first place they could have broken out and met with Mansteins offensive which reached to within 30-60 miles of the city.

The Germans took most of their veteran, understrength combat formations from the East and threw them into the Wacht am Rhein operation.

Allied strategic bombing was crippling the German war industry and delaying oil production in the vital Ploestie (sp?) oil fields with bombing raids there. Not to mention during the Sicily invasion that critical units, at the height of the fighting at Kursk, were taken away from the German forces fighting there, the most important military operation in the 20th century.

The USSR did carry the weight on their shoulders for most of the war, but without the Allies aid and Allied bombing, the war in the East would almost certainly have been lost.

 

Thanks Gibson, well said. It saves me from saying something similar.

I also agree that because of hitlers meddeling, it did help shorten the war by gosh only knows how long.

[ 23 July 2001: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

 

Land: Strategic: Manstein, Tactical: Rommel

Sea: Strategic: Doenitz, Tactical: Prien

Air: Strategic: Who ever was incharge of Pearl Harbor, Tactical: Kesserling

 

Land-Zhukov,Manstein,Rommel

Sea-Doenitz

Air-Galland

 

Welcome aboard, dcierny! Hope you enjoy yourself in here!

Squirrel, who are you referring to about Pearl Harbour? Commander Genda - who was in charge of the air attack -, vice-admiral Nagumo - in command of the carrier task force - or admiral Yamamoto - the master strategical mind behind the plan?

 

If a question of great generalship is measured with how much you do with what you've got then my choice is Rommel for Germans in African campaign and Chuikov in defence of Stalingrad. They really had not much at their disposal but did a great job.
On the other hand, if you take strategy and skill in to account than on German side it must be Manstein. Someon said that he had to be in Chief of staff and that is absolutely right. Erich von Manstein was a mastermind behind invasion of France in '40., conqueror of Sevastopol and in charge of releaving 6th Army from Stalingrad which was an impossible task and in spite of that performed briliantly. Last but not least, recapture of Kharkov was his work, another brilliant performance. OK, someone would say he was defeated at Kursk but taking in consideration all factors, NOONE could have defeated Soviets in that sector.
Guderian is not mentioned so many times and he was a guy that practicall invented Blitzkrieg and was in command of Panzer troops that sliced through Belgium and France. My opinion that Guderian was perfect in early stages when Hitler let their generals do their job.

 

Welcome aboard, Srdo! Hope you enjoy yourself in here!

 

Thanks, Friedrich
I am aboard for quite some time but I was, let's say, away for some time due to military reasons

 

Sounds like a good synopsis of Mansteins' self-serving and myth-establishing memoir called "Lost Victories".

Cheers,

 

Sounds like a good synopsis of Mansteins' self-serving and myth-establishing memoir called "Lost Victories".

Cheers, </font>[/QUOTE]But it is correct, isn't it? With the possible exception of Charkov.

 

Sounds like a good synopsis of Mansteins' self-serving and myth-establishing memoir called "Lost Victories".

I am sorry but what I had mentioned are facts, aren't they?

 

Erich von Manstein - as almost all generals - was very egotistical and "Lost Victories" may portray himself as a little better than he was. But STILL. Erich von Manstein was not only the best German general, but WWII's and maybe the whole XX century, according to several things I've read and of conclusions I have made by reading what he DID. ANd what Srdo posted is the complete truth.

 

Haha, guess you all wanna nail me on this huh?

"Erich von Manstein was a mastermind behind invasion of France in '40.,..."

Wrong. Hitler was the mastermind behind the Invasion of France, Manstein was a mastermind in the planning of this invasion.

But, O.K.: Of course that's nitpicking. The "a" saved you. Fact.

"...conqueror of Sevastopol..."

Fact.

"...and in charge of releaving 6th Army from Stalingrad..."

Along with other tasks, yes. Fact.

"...which was an impossible task and in spite of that performed briliantly."

Huh? Manstein himself said ("Verlorene Siege" pp.330 ff.) that releasing the 6th Army was of course not impossible. In his memoirs he blames Paulus for not being disobient and just break out against Hitler's "stand firm" order. On the other hand, he - Paulus' superior - refused to cover Paulus' disobience ("I can't give you that Order, Paulus"). Of course he doesn't mentione THAT in his book.

And what exactely in releasing the 6th Army was so "brilliantly performed"? I missed that. To me the destruction of the 6th Army was a miserable, total defeat. Not loosing more than every single man of the 6th Army PLUS a release attempt is a "brilliant success"?


"Last but not least, recapture of Kharkov was his work, another brilliant performance."

Uhm, can't comment on that, never studied it, so I take this for face value. KnightMove already mentioned that this "possible" is not true.

"OK, someone would say he was defeated at Kursk but taking in consideration all factors, NOONE could have defeated Soviets in that sector."

Can't comment on that, not my area of expertise. If _you_ (and not Manstein himself) are saying that no-one could ever win there, you're possible right, I have to trust you there.


So, in fact, we have a lot of agreement here, don't we?

Now finally we just have to agree that Manstein was a convicted war criminal, sentenced to prison, a true believer that Germany could win the war in late 1943 and that he issued orders like: "The soldier should understand the necessity of the punishment of Jewry - the carrier of the very spirit of the Bolshevik terror. This is also needed to nip in the bud all disorders that are mainly inspired by the Jews.", and asked for the watches of the killed Jews for "military purposes".

And if we all finally agree that his memoirs are self-serving, extremely selective, have huge gaps when it comes to some of his less sucessive stories, apologizing, biased, in most accounts wrong when it comes to decribing the Soviet side, and that he is outright lying (not just cloaking or not mention it, but telling real, fat lies!) to his readers on his own role and knowledge in the Holocaust and war crimes, we'll have nothing to discuss anymore.

Cheers,

 

Andy, I agree with you in your thoughts about Von Manstein's memoirs, about his war crimes and about the whole thing of 'Winterstorm' (except that I object in some little matters Which I won't mention). And the things Srdo said about Khárkov and Kursk are true.

But I absolutely disagree about the 'Sichelschnitt' planning! Hitler DID NOT plan the Ardennes offensive.

Hitler clearly saw how awful were the OKH's plans to invade France and he started thinking about other posibilities where he vaguely considered the Ardennes as a viable point for an attack. But as every plan Hitler had, it was vague, unfounded and not clear enough. It was not until Von Manstein had designed the whole plan at strategical, tactical and logistical levels that Hitler immediately accepted it and very soon started to claim the plan as his. And I am not bashing Hitler, since I have always believed that he was a good strategist after all, but lacked all the natural genious, experience and knowledge his generals and specially, Von Manstein had.