Of course they have to be winning Generals. Zhukov and Grant spring immediately to mind. There are others. The point is that they defeated better regarded Generals, or Armies, in a long campaign.
Is the Label a bad rap? Do we discount them unfairly because they were very direct in their approach? Or are these simply sluggers with enough brains to close on a lighter opponent?
J
Grant absolutely has a bad rap. He wass every bit Lee's equal and more.
Since when is Grant mediocre? He was probably the best general to have served in the Western Theatre of the Civil War, his leadership of the Army of the Potomac was generally pretty good - Cold Harbour excepted - and he was a roaring success as supreme commander of the US Army. It's hardly his fault that the weapons technology of the day meant that attacking a well prepared and competent enemy was always costly - I believe that Lee's forces suffered equally high casualties when they went on the offensive.
This is entirely correct. However, because Lee has so many fanboys writing history in his favor, Grant is usually depicted as an unthinking clod who simply won because he had the larger numbers. Not that that helped Pope or MaClellan. On the second point you're wrong. Lee suffered HIGHER casualty rates then Grant. In fact, if you look at Lee's early "victories", he's taking higher casualties then the Union.
Sure, but so could alot of other generals of the time. Just not many of the other UNION generals.
Unfortunately, the Confederate Generals had no business building up forces for Large, Napoleonic Battles with the Union. Grant was right to say that Lee's strategy never posed a threat to the union, Johnston's did.
I'm not sure if Zhukov was that much a bad commander comsidering what he had to work with, but no in the same class as Chuikov or Rodimtsev.
The thing about Zhukov is he was one of the vrery few people with balls to tell Stalin things straight, and one of the fewer to come out of it.
A distinction needs to be drawn with Zhukov. Zhukov was a terrible commander, but a brilliant strategist. In creating a military strategy, he was a genius, but his implimentation left much lacking. He often held far too tightly to the plans he had drawn up, and some of his mistakes were inexcusible. The main reason why Soviet Casualties were so attrocious with the Battle of Berlin was Zhukov simply assumed more artillery would be better, and hey, no need for the shells after the war right? So he pounded Berlin with every gun he could,
while storming the city. Soviet losses to friendly fire were attrocious during the battle of Berlin.
To Summarize: Great Staff Officer, wouldn't want to actually serve under him.
I think a lot of Rommel's reputation comes from the fact he is generally believed to be anti-Nazi, and a genuine equal to the Allied forces against him. It gives him a romantic quality and makes him worthy adversary to historians, whereas the automatic reaction if he were a Nazi would be 'another evil enemy to conquer.'
Too bad its not a deserved reputation.
Mao Tse-Tung. Fortunately, Chiang Kai-Shek was much worse, and corrupt to boot.
Mao Tse-Tung really wasn't much of a Military commander. He was a keen political strategist, but wasn't much in the way of commanding troops. Chiang Actually commanded troops well, which is why he was the leader of China. He was clearly more adept then any of the other warlords, and when he handled troops that were equal in skill and equipment to the Japanese, he did rather well.
EISENHOWER
I rate him as over-cautious. Defence is not always the best way but under his leadership things took far to long. Even longer than a cautious defensive campaign should have taken. He didn't seem to possess that unique quality to read the terrain or an unfolding battle like Rommel or Patton. It is true that his troops were underprepared and poorly kitted out in comparison to the Germans but he had so many resources on hand he should have pushed much harder.
He was fortunate to be very ably supported by some very canny Generals. Patton, Bradley, Cota and even Montgomery (though another proponent of exceptionally long buildups). His airforce advisors were also saviours, guys like Bomber Harris and Spaatz.
Eisenhower was the best general America had during the war hands down. How was he overly cautious? The only time I can think of him missing an opportunity was his decision to keep a floating reserve, rather then landing at Algiers. I would remind you that it was Eisenhower who adapted quickly when Bradley found a bridge over the Rhine, reacting within hours to something like that is very quick for a theatre commander. Some of those leaders were much worse, and are highly overrated. Patton should have been removed after Palermo, and if it wasn't for Eisenhower, he would have been. If he had any flaws as a commander, it was giving Patton too much of a free hand, because they were friends for so long.
Uhmm Lincoln didn't fire any of his former General-in-chiefs. Winfield Scott retired, but in his short time in office did come up with the Anaconda plan, something that Grant broadly speaking used when he was in command. McClellan had the command removed from him true but it was hardly a case of being fired as Lincoln put it across as giving Mclellan time to devote his duties to the upcoming Penninsula campaign. Halleck was "kicked upstairs" to be Chief of Staff. Whilst both of the latter were cautious neither were totally incompetent, being excellent administrators. They did however lack the confidence and will Lincoln needed to finish the war, and he found that in Grant.
Ah poor McClellan. He was very much like Zhukov. His plans were brilliant, and could have ended the war years earlier...if someone else had executed it.
Rommel, really? Didn't he and Guderian practically invent Blitzkrieg in mid-stride? As far as I know, that's THE military doctrine now.
Rommel didn't invent anything. Guderian set up the doctrine years prior, Rommel just executed it, but he had no more role in it then von Manstein, or other great german generals in employing it. Blitzkrieg isn't really the doctrine fo the day anymore. Mechanized warfare of course is big, but thats not the exclusive domain of Blitzkrieg. Deep Battle for example, has just as much influence probably.
