Which General´s capture would be most critical?

Many Generals were killed or captured during the war. Yet Rommel did many a time get lost behind enemy lines and was not captured ( close, close..), Zhukov´s HQ was some 100 meters from the German attackers in Stalingrad at one time, Montgomery almost went to the axis zone in El-Alamein area in autumn 1942 and might have been caught.

Just for fun I´ll put a poll for your opinion, the loss of which General/Field Marshal would have been the worst at the time.
Rommel 1941-1942
Zhukov 1942
Monty 1942

sorry doen´t work. Gotta work on it...

[ 23. February 2003, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

 

Again, Rommel. Montgomery would have been replaced as he replaced Auchinleck and Wavell who were much better than him. And Zhúkov was NEVER a general who used to be in the front line.

 

Hi Kai--I think you MEANT Chuikov who was at Stalingrad

 

Of course it was Chuikov (as I explain in the other thread, similar to this). Zhúkov was not a front-line general at all. And he didn't have anything to do with the battle at Stalingrad. The commander of the area was general Vassilievski.

 

I think that Rommel would be the most critical. This is because he was such a great general his capture would be a big blow to the moral of the German army. Also no one could fill his shoes.

 

You are absolutely right about the blow to the German morale. But you are overrrating Rommel. There were several men within the Wehrmacht who would have filled his shoes. Just remember general Wilhelm von Thoma, commander of the Afrika Korps and Panzer Group 'Afrika' during the battle at El Alamein.

 

The Germans had many very good replacements for Rommel. I think that losing Montgomery would have been detrimental to the British Army. In their eyes, he was the only great general. I think there were other generals better but that is besides the point. So I go for the British. Now the Soviets were also limited in good generals as well. At least those that could handle the strain of Stalin.

 

Gort Beginning of May 1940...Whos going to ignore the politicians and allied General staffs.

Whos going to decide to do the right thing?

The BEF does not make it home.

 

Completely agree with PzJgr and Urqh. Lord Gort was an incredible good general and he was the one who accepted facts and saw the real situation clearly. And Monty was the one who raised his troops morale after they had suffered incredible setbacks. Besides, Monty was the replacement of the replacement of the commander's replacement...

Who else? I think Erich von Manstein's capture or death (almost happened) at Sevastopol in 1942 would have been fateful for the Germans, who won that battle because of Von Manstein's awesome leadership.

 

After reading a bit on Walther von Reichenau,
I´m tempted to ask You, Friedrich:

Would He have done it differently in Stalingrad if it was him leading the 6th Army instead of Paulus?

 

Indeed he would, Kai!

Even if I doubt that a field marshal could still command only an Army by 1942... But let's suposse that he doesn't die and that he remains as commander of the VI Army. Then the VI Army would have performed even better at the 2nd battle of Khárkov. Von Reichenau was such a military genious and intrepid commander that the VI Army as strong it was would have been unstopable. Von Reichenau was a man like Rommel, who hated desk work and who loved to be in the field with his men, leading infantry attacks himself. Marshal Von Reichenau would have encircled and annihilated Soviet Armies LXII and LXIV before they retreated to the city of Stlingrad by August 1942. Friedrich Paulus was a very good general, but was a staff one. He didn't have experience. Actually, when he was Von Reichenau's chief of staff in Poland and France they both worked incredibly well together. They both completed the lacks of the other. But the point is that with Von Reichenau's intrepid leadership the city of Stalingrad would have been captured without firing a shot... And even if the battle would have been in the situation it really was, under the frontal siege of the VI Army, Von Reichenau would have exploited the Soviet Army's flaws and it is rather probable that the city would have been captured. However, there are posibilities that Von Reichenau's bad health and daring actions at the frontline would have caused his death in the middle of the campaign.

Even with this, Friedrich Paulus is underrated as a commander. He was just a staff conservative, but very good officer. Maybe you needed another person in command of the VI Army. And Paulus was an ideal man to fullfill Jodl's post.

 

Good poll but you have 3 questions, and you only have one answer for each.

 

Rommel would not have had a profound influence being captured because in the end he lost anyway. Had the Afrika Korps won in North Africa, then Rommel by far would have been a huge disaster to Germany captured.

I will say Zhukov, if only because without him, the USSR could very well have lost the war...and the Ostfront is where it counts, not Africa, or even Europe, as in Monty's case.

 

I have to agree with das reich. The war was won in the east not the west or africa. Monty was a good commander and losing him would have been a blow to british morale. Rommel was also a good commander, but he never fought on the eastern front.