Most talented allied commander in WWII

If I remember correctly, from Soviet commanders, D. Glantz especially credited Zhukov and Vasilevsky.
 
And not fail horrible. Plus did he ever command anything in WW2?
Who cares? Everyone was a Junior officer compared to him, ergo they can't be in the running against him. Goering wins "Best commander of WWII" because theres no one who can challenge him. :mischief:
 
Who cares? Everyone was a Junior officer compared to him, ergo they can't be in the running against him. Goering wins "Best commander of WWII" because theres no one who can challenge him. :mischief:
No using your logic Roosevelt & Senate is in fact the "Best commander of WW2" since Patton, Ike, Bradley and every other American general were junior to them
 
Roosevelt and senate as you say were not commanders...and polease keep this reasonable. Thats the worst logic ive ever seen :lol:.
 
No using your logic Roosevelt & Senate is in fact the "Best commander of WW2" since Patton, Ike, Bradley and every other American general were junior to them
Your logic not mine. I'm willing to except that Junior officers, like Bradley, can be better then their commanding officers.
 
Your logic not mine. I'm willing to except that Junior officers, like Bradley, can be better then their commanding officers.

Thats one of the three conditions that I stated, get all 3 and maybe you have something.
 
You stated one
Bradley over Patton, umm you do realize that Bradley was deputy to Patton while in II Corps and Ike still put Patton back in command over Bradley's protests after he was relieved in Sicily for slapping incident (am getting this from the movie so i don't if its true or not). My top 3 allied generals (cause its just to hard to pick one) would be.
So yes, tell me, since Patton was passed over by others to even higher ranks, how can he be considered better, if Bradley cannot?
 
You stated one

So yes, tell me, since Patton was passed over by others to even higher ranks, how can he be considered better, if Bradley cannot?

And then couple posts down I put another one up.
 
Best justification for Zhukov is that he wasn't Stalin.
 
I know it was some Russian general he or someone else has spoken highly of before and am to lazy, sick and tired to look it up.

The only Soviet generals I've ever given credit to were Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Mikhail Kalinin, Mikhail Frunze, and Konstanin Rokossovsky.

So it appears that Georgy's chief problem was not being named after the Patron Saint of Warriors.

If I remember correctly, from Soviet commanders, D. Glantz especially credited Zhukov and Vasilevsky.

I don't know how much he really credited Zhukov as a good commander, but merely the commander who actually accomplished things. He was hard on Voroshilov for the debacle in Finland, and thereafter around Leningrad, and Budyonny for the disaster in Kiev, and thus praised Zhukov because he made sense of both the Leningrad and Moscow situations (though at the outskirts of the capital itself!), but I think his praise really stops there. He did, after all, dedicate an entire book (The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars) to Zhukov's insanity in the Ryzhev Meat Grinder.

I agree with him in all these criticisms and conclusions. I really cannot express my contempt for Kliment Voroshilov enough.
 
No comment on Vasilevsky?
 
Who and what? If you're talking about the Battle of Britain, the Germans very cleverly lost that on their own.

But he kept the RAF fighting long enough for the Germans to basically give up. Interestingly, much of his struggle was against other RAF officers who were basically pompous asses who didn't know they were doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom