well yes.
But what examming qualities of the generals do you prefered to discuss?
Bravery and professionalism? Or merciless and devotion to its principes?
BTW the Rokossovskij was the most intelliigent and elegant commander of the Red Army.
may be becouse he had a polis roots;)
Remember we were questioning each other on Patton and Eisonhower. Kind of like arguing, but not really.
Hey,
that’s okay. I’m just kidding, guy! 
In truth I doubt that anyone can really protest about the thread. I doubt there is much that one might consider unethical or immoral which will come from any discussion. If it has been discussed elsewhere, then probably not by those that wish to participate now.
I would recommend examining those things which make a General and see how any particular General fits the criteria (in your case, using Patton, as he’s the one you like).
For example: Intellect, Energy, Selflessness, Humanity and the ability to forecast, plan, co-ordinate comunicate, command and controll (the list is not exhaustive). as they say - the complete package!
However, in the meantime, here are a few things to whet the appetite:
Slim on Stilwell and himself, when, after the war, writing of the situation early in the Burma campaign -
[i]"…As to the two corps commanders, neither Stilwell nor I had much to boast about. His difficulties were greater than mine, and he met them with a dogged courage beyond praise, but his CHinese armies were, as yet, not equal to the Japanese. He was constantly on the look-out for an aggressive counter-stroke, but his means could not match the spirit. He could not enforce his orders nor could his inadequate staff and communications keep in touch with his troops. When he saw his formations disintegrate under his eyes, no man could have done more than and very few as much as Stilwell, by personal leadership and example to hold the Chinese together, but once the rot had set in the task was impossible.
For myself, I had little to be proud of; I could not rate my generalship high. The only test of generalship is success, and I had succeeded in nothing I had attempted…"[/i]
Here are some interesting quotes by some interesting Generals:
Could I add that any assessment requires us to look at the situation the general was facing, and the wisdom of his dispositions and the effectiveness of his forces in the circumstances. These are the things that, in my view, make Slim better than Eisenhower or Montgomery or Patton in Europe as Slim was starved of forces and equipment and supplies while in contact with the enemy, compared with the relative luxury of the build up in England leading to D-Day without the enemy pressing their forces on any front.
History focuses on generals with great victories.
Without looking up their names, can anyone remember the names of the Japanese generals on Iwo Jima and Okinawa?
For well planned, well executed, and grinding defence they were both very competent generals. What made them better than average among Japanese generals was that they learnt the lessons from earlier similar campaigns such as Pelilieu and devised different tactics to inflict maximum casualties and delays on the enemy, and did it very well. But hardly anybody remembers them, although the world remembers the great picture of the second flag raising on Iwo Jima. If the Japanese general hadn’t made it so hard for them to get to that point, that picture wouldn’t have anything like the same meaning.
Great link.
I love this quote, which I’ve never seen before:
“My Lord, if I attempted to answer the mass of futile correspondence which surrounds me, I should be debarred from the serious business of campaigning. So long as I retain an independent position, I shall see no officer under my command is debarred by attending to the futile drivelling of mere quill-driving from attending to his first duty, which is and always has been to train the private men under his command that they may without question beat any force opposed to them in the field.” (To the Secretary of State for War during the Peninsular Campaign)
Wellington
I have some vague recollection of Churchill expressing a similar sentiment.
Wellington’s statement should be tattooed on the forehead of every officer upon entering officer training school, and on every civilian manager in the public service and large private corporations. If this injunction had been observed in the couple of centuries since Wellington was at war, the planet would have squillions more trees and global warming wouldn’t be half as bad. 
Aboslutely! I was thinking that these points would be brought-out as the discussion progressed. That was one of the reasons for my ‘Slim’ quote, when things with him, and Stilwell, were at their lowest ebb.
Stilwell was an aggressive general, and a very good tactical commander, at least as good as Patton and achieving a bloody sight more in far worse conditions in much worse country with a lot less, in men, materiel, and self-promoting publicity.
Stilwell was caught constantly between higher political machinations among the Allies and the deviousness of Peanut (his term for Chiang Kai Chek) and his corrupt Nationalist army. He lacked tact, in spades, and was continually frustrated by Peanut who was playing his own self-aggrandising political games to bleed more money and arms from the Allies, primarily the US, while often doing SFA to contribute to the Allied effort while doing plenty to feather the Nationalist nest and to advance its interests against Mao. Chiang finally managed to get rid of Stilwell when Stilwell was close to taking over the control of and unifying the forces Chiang ran on a divide and conquer basis.
As with so much in the CBI, Vinegar Joe is just a footnote in a sideshow when, in fact, the production run on shoestring was a bloody sight more than a sideshow. As would readily have been demonstrated if the Japanese had won there.
Yeah, I know we were just kidding about each other.
My favorite commander of world war 2 is still Rommel. Another great accomplishment by Rommel was that he help make the Flak 88. He was the ultimate Desert Fox.
If he was so good, why did he fail to reduce Tobruk on the first attempt?
He was a very good general, but his results weren’t always brilliant.
Probably so, but he is not the only general who had a lost. I bet you every general in World War 2 had a bad result in a battle. So would not focus on one lost. Many generals did have at least one or more.
For an outstanding general, try Richard O’Connor.
Who?
Ran brilliant thrust in North Africa which achieved victory. Captured. Interned. Escaped. Commanded VIII Corps in Normandy invasion.
There wasn’t an English-speaking general to rival him for front line service and achievement.
But who remembers him?
I for one do not remember him. I am just familiar with the main generals and some other ones from all of the fronts.
Nobody does, because he was merely very good at what he did rather than famous like self-promoting generals such as MacArthur, Patton, and to a lesser extent Eisenhower and Montgomery.
Much as I hate using Wikipedia as the source for anything, this entry summarises his career without covering his great military achievements in any detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O’Connor
Omar Bradley was probably at least as good a general as Patton, probably much better, but they didn’t both get the same chance to prove their ability so it’s hard to compare them.
Personality traits: Intellect, Energy, Selflessness, Humanity
There is a natural overlap in the list of abilities (below), and also they can be broken down further. There are points that can be added as sub-headings when discussing the Generals. I have added several, there are others. It could be interesting to see, as we move along, how a particular General’s abilities and performance fit within these headings.
Ability:-
-Forecast Intution, Inteligence (as in information), Geography(as in topography, climate, weather)
-Plan Strategy, Tactics, Flexibilty
-Co-ordinate Adapt, Improvise, Logistics, Sub-units
-Comunicate Orders, Plans, Intelligence, Sit-reps, Logistical Supply
-Command Lead, Presence, Inspire, Delegate
-Control Sub-units, Resources, Supply.
Each of the individual traits and abilities are important, but they become great when they are applied as a whole - Synergy!
I remember him. Excellent General. Captured by a shear fluke. He was well behind his own lines. If he hadn’t been captured I rather expect we would never have heard of Monty.
Then again, Patton’s disengagement to re-engage a different enemy force at Bastogne is one of the most brilliant moves in warfare at general level. Ever.
Resolute. Committed to aim once aim is identified, regardless of losses. Same feature identifies determined general and butcher general. Ensures that objectives are taken, or keeps throwing in troops to take unbeatable objective. Winning is a fine run thing.
I agree that Rommel is a little foolhardy yes, specially in his early frontal attack against Tobruk wich bring heavy losses to DAK, but reading his campaings a little more in deep you will see that the man had to sustain the front always with scarce and meager resources, the fact he captured Tobruk and the victory over the surrounding Commonwealth Forces in june 1942 is still a remarkable achievement.
Ability - Plan: ‘Aim’ (Objective).
Personal trait - Humanitarian: Butcher (failed to meet standard of a great general?)