This ever polled before, but this time, i dont want to discuss on whose the best over what.
Given a chance you serve in WW2, which commander you would gladly serve under?
I would choose Rommel, i might be the victim of goebbels propaganda 
Rommel too, he did well with what he had.
Bill Slim. One of the greatest commanders of WW2, and one who clearly cared deeply for the troops under his command.
Gen. Lucian Truscott led the breakout from Anzio and subsequently was embittered towards Mark Clark for ordering him into Rome rather than completely cutting off the retreating German Army under Kesselring. He replaced the maligned (unfairly methinks) Lucas and took over VI Corp and had a seemingly meteoric rise as a battlefield commander and probably should have commanded the entire theater from the beginning instead of Gen. Clark.
Like Slim, he’d be far better known had he fought in Western France after Normandy. He’s often compared to Patton in his aggressive temperament. But I think he would have been far more loved by his soldiers than Patton ever was.
Wiki recounts a story by Bill Maudlin (hardly a fanboy of many US generals) in which Truscott quickly turned away from a crowd of correspondents and clingers to be alone in the cemetery to quietly apologize to the men that died under his command and is said to have left in tears…
I think Rick Atkinson’s excellent books Army at Dawn and Day of Battle go a long way of turning much of the conventional wisdom on its head regarding US generals during WWII and it goes a long way of dispelling the myths regarding the “name” generals of WWII such as Patton being in any way better than some of the less famous ones. I suppose that applies to almost all of the armies that fought…
Monty.
I agree. Bill Slim was one of the best leaders the British ever had, and should be on the poll.
The snooty BBC largely ignored Slim, and the Asian/Pacific theatre where he mostly served in WWII. But he deserves recognition as one of the greatest WWII Generals, not just for his strategies, but for his leadership and ability to communicate.
He was once a Corporal who got busted to private. He understood his men, and cared for them.
Yes sir,. i should have put more names on it,
eg, Lecrec, Eisenhower, Nimitz, Spruance, Ernest J King, Meinstein, Kesselring,. and many notable commanders,.
but i can’t, so i choose the most celebrated one, at least by the media;)
Cheers
That’s the whole problem with famous generals.
They get to be that way because for propaganda purposes they’re pushed by the military or government to the press; or because they know how to manipulate the press; or just because they strike a chord with one or more journalists.
MacArthur is the most egregious Allied example in WWII. He benefited from all three ways of achieving fame, which gave him a public standing well beyond any balanced assessment of his military ability and achievements in the Philippines in 1941-42 but in time he lived up to his press releases. This in turn led to him being largely protected from political control, because of his undeserved high public standing and political connections, until he went too far in Korea.
It’s the same with the talking heads we see on television news every night who are experts on everything from investments to raising children to terrorism and so on. Most of them aren’t there, and certainly not on the commercial channels, because they are the top experts in their field but because they give a good sound grab in ten or fifteen seconds to spice up the coverage. Many of them are very ordinary in their field, but they make good vision and sound. Just like politicians of modest ability who know how to beam down the television lens.
Slim is the opposite of MacArthur, against the same enemy. He was engaged in a largely ignored war which he fought with original and effective tactics against a previously unstoppable enemy, and moreover did it after taking over a defeated and dispirited army which never had the same claim on resources as the forces in Europe.
There are plenty of commanders on both sides in all theatres who did very well but who are unknown to the general public, including the likes of O’Connor in North Africa and Puller in the Pacific. Yamashita was probably a better commander than MacArthur in both attack or defence, as he proved in Malaya and later against MacArthur’s superior forces in the Philippines where Yamashita managed to maintain his defence for ten months.
And all of this underlines the question: What do we mean by ‘commander’? Division? Corps? Army? Army Group? Theatre?
Agreed with all of the above. Was Mac a great commander? or was he just a very good general manager that was able to exploit the right talent under him (and then take credit for their work)? General Eichelberger was MacArthur’s “fireman” and was probably a far more able combat commander than Doug was, and while he got some acclaim after the War with a famous Time Magazine profile, I think he’s largely buried in history under “Dugout Doug’s” magnificent ego and personal ambition…
MacArthur’s failures and very mixed record in Korea --and the complete turnaround the US Army there achieved in terms of quality and fighting ability when another vastly underrated US commander, Gen. Matthew Ridgeway, took over-- is very telling…
More the latter, I’d say.
But then again, isn’t that part of being a ‘great’ commander?
Same as there are some semi-dummies in all sorts of senior positions in government and commerce who are essentially flim-flam men and women but who are smart enough to hire and control good talent to make themselves look good, and set up patsies for when things go wrong.
Back to Mac, I doubt he’d have done as well in any public respect and many military respects without Sutherland to protect him and promote his interests. Then again, maybe just another occasion of exploiting the right talent under him?
Not probably. Definitely. MacArthur didn’t have any combat command in WWII at the level Eichelberger did, or any direct field combat command during WWII. At crucial times (especially Papua New Guinea 1942-43 when Eichelberger was there) MacArthur failed - at times to a degree bordering on criminal negligence - to appreciate or even bother to try to inform himself adequately about the situation his American and especially Australian field commanders faced and to support them adequately. They won in spite of, not because of, his somewhat deficient and arrogant ‘leadership’ at that crucial time when Mac was shitting himself that he’d lose his command and last chance at glory if those troops lost in the field and devoting much of his attention to trying to avoid losing his command.
I’ve made this point before, but Eichelberger was outstanding and perhaps unique in taking a (admittedly poorly trained, inadequately equipped, poorly fed, and deficiently led - which apparently doesn’t reflect badly on MacArthur for putting them there ???)force that had pretty much dropped its weapons and was lying around in the field at Buna at the end of 1942 but in weeks converted them in the field into a force which attacked and took the objective.
I think it sums up MacArthur’s sense of the importance of publicity and his control of it that when he gave Eichelberger and E’s chief of staff his “win or die there” speech when sending them to Buna that he also said to E that if E won Mac would release his name to the press. E mentions this rather sardonically in his book “Our Jungle Road to Tokyo”. E clearly didn’t attach the same importance to publicity that Mac did. Possibly because E was going north to fight a real war as a general at the very front line, which inspired his demoralised troops, rather than staying in a base where the press war was often more important to Mac than the real war.
I’ve also said elsehere that the ‘Dugout Doug’ title was unfair as Mac demonstrated a number of times in the Philippines 1941-42 and later in his advance back to the Philippines that he did not lack personal courage under fire. Or, perhaps, that he was just such an arrogant prick that he believed he would not be killed until it was his time and that he could ignore fire until then. Either way, he exposed himself unnecessarily to fire on several occasions from the defence to the invasion of the Philippines and he doesn’t deserve to be remembered just as the publicity-seeking clown who re-enacted his great “I shall return” scene for the press. He was, like most of us and especially great men, a complex character who can’t be pigeon holed under a neat nickname.
Gentlemen, having read through the previous posts, it seems to me that in order to claim this bod or that bod as being a great commander - as opposed to stating why we think they are not - one must first of all define that criteria which makes a great commander and then judge each individual as to whether or not they tick the boxes. In listing the criteria, each factor ought to be cearly defined and/or explained so that there is no ambiguity. After that we can also debate the individual’s sex-appeal…i.e. what it is about the individual that inspires us.
I think it was Napoleon who said “…give me a lucky general!”
Absolutely. I think in many ways Gen. Eisenhower was the antithesis of Mac and the men clearly didn’t like each other. Ike didn’t necessarily directly choose his staff, but he was able to balance the giant egos of his American and British (and French) subordinates and maintain a cool detachment. This despite the fact that he had no actual battlefield experience and would not have any significant experience overseeing a major battle until perhaps arguably the Bulge, in which he made some critical decisions albeit for a limited scope during the battle…
Same as there are some semi-dummies in all sorts of senior positions in government and commerce who are essentially flim-flam men and women but who are smart enough to hire and control good talent to make themselves look good, and set up patsies for when things go wrong.
How did you know my last set of bosses?
Back to Mac, I doubt he’d have done as well in any public respect and many military respects without Sutherland to protect him and promote his interests. Then again, maybe just another occasion of exploiting the right talent under him?
I’d say both. I would agree with your later statements in this post in that MacArthur was a capable commander with ability and in fact knew his limitations. However, he clearly always had an overriding political agenda which sort of ruins him. He also tends to display a continuing almost disregard for the enforcement of the fundamentals of infantry training…
Not probably. Definitely. MacArthur didn’t have any combat command in WWII at the level Eichelberger did, or any direct field combat command during WWII. At crucial times (especially Papua New Guinea 1942-43 when Eichelberger was there) MacArthur failed - at times to a degree bordering on criminal negligence - to appreciate or even bother to try to inform himself adequately about the situation his American and especially Australian field commanders faced and to support them adequately. They won in spite of, not because of, his somewhat deficient and arrogant ‘leadership’ at that crucial time when Mac was shitting himself that he’d lose his command and last chance at glory if those troops lost in the field and devoting much of his attention to trying to avoid losing his command.
Some would argue that MacArthur’s greatest military accomplishment prior to WWII was crushing his fellow WWI veteran “Bonus Marchers” and giving them a ‘whiff of grapeshot.’ I think Ike even resented him for this and mentioned how distasteful it was serving as Mac’s “adjutant.” I know Mac was wounded in WWI and genuinely acquitted himself well. But the seeds of his imperious narcissism are clearly illustrated in the blatant and embarrassing exceeding of his mandate in a bid to grab headlines and glory…
I’ve made this point before, but Eichelberger was outstanding and perhaps unique in taking a (admittedly poorly trained, inadequately equipped, poorly fed, and deficiently led - which apparently doesn’t reflect badly on MacArthur for putting them there ???)force that had pretty much dropped its weapons and was lying around in the field at Buna at the end of 1942 but in weeks converted them in the field into a force which attacked and took the objective.
I recall this. This also reflects on my point of Mac seemingly having a theme throughout his career of under-trained, “soft” troops under his garrison commands that are either were not ready to deploy to war, or that he has not bothered to properly prepare and train for battle during one. He never really addressed the weaknesses and piss-poor infantry skills exhibited by US soldiers in Korea up until his sacking in 1951. I think this is prevalent in other cases aside from New Guinea: The Philippines and the aforementioned Japan occupation forces that were sent to Korea. Although granted, he only had about 15,000 US soldiers in the former along with a Filipino Army that ranged from excellent troops in elite formations to a ragtag hodge-podge of half-trained soldiers carrying archaic arms. In Korea, the Army was also beset by problems beyond Mac’s control such as budget cuts and a rudderless conventional national military strategy and concept…
I think it sums up MacArthur’s sense of the importance of publicity and his control of it that when he gave Eichelberger and E’s chief of staff his “win or die there” speech when sending them to Buna that he also said to E that if E won Mac would release his name to the press. E mentions this rather sardonically in his book “Our Jungle Road to Tokyo”. E clearly didn’t attach the same importance to publicity that Mac did. Possibly because E was going north to fight a real war as a general at the very front line, which inspired his demoralised troops, rather than staying in a base where the press war was often more important to Mac than the real war.
Well, you can’t blame Mac for telling his glorious struggles his his two-front campaign against the dastardly Japanese Imperial forces, and those of the US Navy trying to encroach on his papal authority of American and Aussie forces in the Pacific Theater of Operations.
I’ve also said elsehere that the ‘Dugout Doug’ title was unfair as Mac demonstrated a number of times in the Philippines 1941-42 and later in his advance back to the Philippines that he did not lack personal courage under fire. Or, perhaps, that he was just such an arrogant prick that he believed he would not be killed until it was his time and that he could ignore fire until then. Either way, he exposed himself unnecessarily to fire on several occasions from the defence to the invasion of the Philippines and he doesn’t deserve to be remembered just as the publicity-seeking clown who re-enacted his great “I shall return” scene for the press. He was, like most of us and especially great men, a complex character who can’t be pigeon holed under a neat nickname.
I agree and should have expanded a bit on my comments. I don’t believe that Mac can be called in anyway a personal coward. He was noted for his personal courage under fire and was seriously wounded in WWI I believe. What I meant to say was that there would have been no such epithets by US servicemen --and even the perception that he wasn’t personally leading attacks into Japanese machine-gun nests would have been forgiven had his men actually liked him. They didn’t by and large. Many or most respected him, but I think they clearly were aware of his true persona to a much greater extent than the US public was. In fact, when Mac was fired by Truman, the overall mythic perception by some was a “liberal Democrat President” was getting rid of a true American hero and warrior that might potentially grow into a political rival for his predecessor. The truth was that many within the US military establishment, especially and specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were increasingly wary of his decisions and public statements regarding the War. And many directly under him chaffed under his dogmatic command style.
Something you might find interesting though - although Mac was and is perceived as a staunch Republican and ardent “nuke the commies” Cold Warrior, he in fact very much (like Ronald Reagan) moderated his views towards the end of his life as he “faded away.” Mac did in fact have a somewhat close relationship with John F. Kennedy and they spoke at length several times during his presidency. I can’t recall all of the details, but I think somewhat ironically he sort of echoed the theme of Ike’s “Military Industrial Complex” speech privately the Kennedy, and advocated a policy of skillful engagement with the Soviet Union rather than that of a bellicose and hostile feud…
whooolly molly camolly!
men,. i started the thread not to discuss on whose the best bloke around,. 
However IF you have your chance to be in the WW2, which commander ( be it platoon leaderm squadron leader, a general or grand marshall), which one you would preffer to have one of them to shout at you and tell us why? without hesitation or without fear of being bomblasted.
Like me,. i choosen Rommel, despite of knowing his limitations,. and knowing there are others superior performers around,… i like him simply,.he was cool looking guy(photogenic, charismatic looking dude), his motto on ‘krieg ohne hass’, his attitude towards his own and enemy, his aggresivenes, and his guts. :army:
perhaps next time, I would put more options,.
however this time,. perhaps mod can help me with this ( to add the choices)
:
US; C W Nimitz, Spruance(USN ‘Big Boys’ commander), Ernest J King, Omar Bradley,
Brits; Auchenlick, O Connor, Wavell, Freyberg, Earl of Mountbatten (my 2nd contender after Rommel, despite of his action when he was a skipper of HMS Kelly), Bill slim,
Russ. ; Tymoshenko
Japs; Kurata (one of my fave), Yamashita, Minoru Genda, Kuribayashi
Germans; Guderien, Kesselring, Galland, Runstedt, Admiral Raeder (I like his idea on Plan Z)
Others: Anders, Lecrec etc
and so forth,.
Cheers
As far as junior commanders go, I’m rather a fan of Sydney Jary. He is I believe the only platoon commander to fight from Normandy (where he landed on D+3) through to VE day in that role, and wrote what is by all accounts an excellent book about it. Unfortunately I haven’t read it yet as I can’t find a copy that isn’t a complete rip off in price terms.
Paul Hausser - for putting his soldiers’ life above a direct order of Hitler at Kharkov in March 1943, and for continuing to take care of his men in the decades after the war.
noted,. this quality pretty much spread among German generals,. unlike their Fuhrer,. Paulus, Meinstein, Rommel, etc. they all dare to put their bodies against their leader to ensure their men spared.
I’d like to serve under Monty. He may have had an ego the size of a London bus, but he was one of the few major military figures to actually care for his men, not just make noises about it.
He also took a badly flawed army and almost overnight turned it into a formidable and efficient army.
The span between redcoat / Monty and pdf27 / Jary illustrates whether one wants to serve under a remote commander whose achievements reflect distant glory on the individual even if one’s immediate commader is useless and even dangerous versus serving under an immediate commander who cares for his men regardless of the ultimate commander under which they serve.
In the end, I don’t think it matters as there were good small unit commanders under shithouse large unit and formation commanders, and vice versa.
ill go with Rommel. like Churchill said he made the most of what he had. he was a brave, loyal and honorable man. and that was no way for him to die.