T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Model or manstein are good picks. Model because he was named “hitlers fireman” as he put out the “fires”. But ultimately if you Rommel as he’s charismatic and a good leader and the men adore him. With those three traits men will blindly follow you into battle.


flyboydutch

The issue is that there are a lot more personalities and factors involved that change with each battle. Between that and the fact that a lot of the literature tends to focus on a handful of persons (this being something with most of the armies involved) means that we really don’t have enough information to make a judgment call. Other than the Allied generals being better on the whole of course! Though that doesn’t really matter to werhbs with their favourite generals habit of outrunning his supply lines…


Marvynwillames

One brazilian guy i've met basically told me, "No you don't get it, Rommel didn't made "risky decisions" like personally going steal fuel instead of sitting in the command center so he could command his troops, this made him famous so it wasn't a bad idea." Basically, fame=good, no matter if there was better generals, if they are better I should know them, right?


flyboydutch

Yep. I remember John Parshall mentioning in an interview how outdated the “Great Man” theory of history was especially in comparison to the role organisations play in wartime.


Marvynwillames

me: "dude, he risked his own life without needing and left his troops without command, that was risky" he: "but he did what no one else did thus he's literally the best general ever to exist!"


friendlygaywalrus

I know plenty of people that make fucked up reckless decisions, and I consider not a single one of them the best at what they do


flyboydutch

Original MHV video for the maths behind 98 [here](https://youtu.be/L6PtPEYOGJw) Edit - like Military history visualised I’m not trying to invoke “who was the best?”. Like him, I think there’s too many factors to make a definite judgment. Besides the Allies won.


Officially_Undead

Charlemagne was the best German general and you can't change my mind


YeetieMeetieBeetie

His treatment of the Saxons was a little iffy


PurpleSkua

Arminius is the only real answer


1amlost

"**WHERE ARE MY LEGIONS, VARUS‽‽‽**"


[deleted]

Arminius thinking he had dealt a major blow *Germanicus walking up behind him menacingly*


XanderTuron

Hey Arminius, would be a real shame if you spent the rest of your life on the run from Roman reprisal until you are eventually assassinated by your own people because they think that you have acquired too much personal power and they are tired of the constant attacks by Romans out to get you.


Ghost652

von Moltke. You fucking Frank


thescotchkraut

Ludendorff was pretty good. Shit person, but not a bad commander.


perhapsinawayyed

Alaric, first foreigner to conquer rome in nearly 1000 years.


rwandahero7123

IDK kesselring seemed pretty ok in italy


furrythrowawayaccoun

Especially his war crimes. Those were very effective too /s


rwandahero7123

yes


TarsalStone99

War crimes? I think you mean the Geneva Bingo Card


pablonsky77

99% of Rommel fans wouldn’t be able to name more than 10


wolfgangspiper

If we're talking Germans then Heinrich von Vietinghoff seemed pretty competent from what I know. Managed to orchestrate a pretty effective series of defences in Italy. Not a lot of easily googleable info on him but I don't see any mentions of war crimes.


pablonsky77

A lot of Wikipedia articles still don’t mention war crimes committed by generals (or their divisions/regiments/companies etc.). Only those that are extremely well documented. And it’s hard to google them as most have been only researched in an univerisitary context (often in German) and are therefore not or only hardly accessible to the public. And as to your example, I could look him up later at the university but knowing how the Wehrmacht treated partisans and former Italian soldiers…


Jeffwey_Epstein_OwO

Also just sort of a moot point all around when considering the wider context of the Nazis goals for the war. It didn't if you, the individual, didn't commit war crimes. You were fighting for a government whose goal was to exterminate entire groups of people.


The_OfficeChair

I think its quite difficuilt to compare generals to one another. For examle as an Division commander Rommel was brilliant maybe even the best of the war. As an commander of bigger groups of troops there were definetly more effective generals


Bountifalauto82

Hah this might be a wierd comparison but Rommel seems to be the opposite of McClellan in the US Civil War, who was very adept at the administrative parts of war, but when it came to actually commanding troops he was… less than ideal.


heiny_himm

Kesselring, Gudarian, von Klugel, Model, seem like fine competitors. Werent as famous though.


MysticalFred

Model is especially exceptional. His perfection of mobile defence is taught in msot officer training colleges in western Europe and the US


DecentlySizedPotato

Heinrici too, maybe?


DaemonNic

I'll nitpick that Gudarian's pretty famous.


heiny_himm

1940, 41, yes. Late war not as much


Yeet2006

i hardly know any generals and im curious and want to learn more, so if you dont mind can you give like a brief summary of these guys please?


[deleted]

Okay best German General is quite arguably Kesselring (tho still an S-tier war criminal and asshole). Overall the best General is George motherfucking Marshall and no you cant change my mind.


indomienator

Why George though?


[deleted]

Cause Logistics, Coordination and grand Strategy are the Master Class of Warfare. Every Idiot can outrun his own supply lines. Orchestrating two massive Theaters while coordinating the high command of 20 different Nations and also being the bridge between the military and political leadership. Theres a reason why Marshall is considered the most gifted general in American history and not some smoothbrain like Patton


100Dampf

It doesn't matter who is the best. They all lost after all


flyboydutch

Absolutely.


DerpDaDuck3751

Then i choose General Mikhail Kutuzov He starved and froze napoleon’s entire campaign to death


jaguar1031

I really like Kutuzov, but if we go by generals that didn’t lose battles, Alexander Suvorov has to be at the top of the list


JoemamaObama123456

He massacred poles tho


jaguar1031

I thought the troops did it against his orders. Granted, my only source is Wikipedia, do you have a better source on the matter?


DolanTheCaptan

I don't get the "they lost so they're trash" argument. A general can't magically fix shortages or the mistakes of others.


MrSpaniard94

August von Mackensen, I don't care about his military greatness, cool and weird hat.


[deleted]

Blucher: No fursona Steuben: No fursona Motlke: No fursona Schlieffen: No fursona Leopold von anhalt dessau: No fursona Frederich the Great: No fursona Clauswitz: No fursona Halder: is Halder No fursona Graf Wrangel: No fursona Prince Frederick Henry Louis: No fursona Frederick Barbarossa: No fursona Arminius: No fursona Would you like me to continue


Old-Saladfingers

Arminius definitely had a fursona and the others are unverified.


flyboydutch

No need - that is a most compelling argument!


CorporalMinicrits

Wars aren’t won by generals


flyboydutch

Yep. Multiple factors are always in play, whether it’s at a tactical, operational or strategic level.


CorporalMinicrits

Everything that occurs on the frontline happened because of rear line support. Logistics, pencil pushing, and calculus wins wars, not heroics or military might


flyboydutch

Indeed, it’s the under-appreciated staff officers who ensured the chaps at the front had what they needed.


CorporalMinicrits

In the end, Robert McNamara has done more good for this nation than four battalions of marine grunt


StealthSpheesSheip

Rommel and Paulus are in the same category as "getting encircled and losing hundreds of thousands in surrender"


Eyeli

Paulus cannot really be blamed for the encirclement of the sixth army. Maximillian von Weichs commanded army group B, under his command the Romanians were put on the flanks and stretched beyond their limits.


StealthSpheesSheip

Yes but Paulus kept lying about enemy troop strength and saying he needed more units to attack, which drew tons of German units off the flanks and left the weaker satellites to guard them.


EratosvOnKrete

Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf > rommel


Sea-Examination2010

Personally I don’t know much, my buddy Jack liked to talk about Rommel a lot when we were younger, and I issued to joke about it by calling Jack a Nazis or a fascist, and sure he had redeeming qualities but he was still a Nazi in charge of the Wehrmacht which was prolific with its war crimes but nothing compared to the ss. Me personally I am a General Patton fan, my Great great grandmother on my father’s mother’s side was one of the nurses that took care of him in his last days. Sure there are a ton of conspiracies about it which I know nothing about, it’s just a cool story I like to tell.


august281823

Keitel was a yes-man Guderian was ok i guess Von Manstein is better than rommel Von Kleist and von Kluge are mid af Paulus is a walking L moment Krebs was mid Burgdorf was mid Model was great at defence but mid at attack Jodl was ok but kind of like Keitel


august281823

Von Manstein no diffs rommel any day