Guderian.

A fantastic original thinker.

I definately disagree with Zukov as the best general. His tactic of double envelopment combined with a frontal assault worked, but at such a rediculously high cost he would have been quickly tossed in any modern democratic government. Remeber that the high losses where not just in the desperate battles for stalingrad and lenningrad where they could be rationalized, but they continued all the way until the end of the war with especially extreme losses in and around Berlin even when at that point the war was decided.

I dont know, he did win the war for the USSR. And it is untrue that he tossed away human life. It was a hard war against a tough opponent and casualties were inavitable. For what the Russian lost they also destroyed 80% of the Nazi warmachine.

it is really no comparison between Zhukov and Patton,
Zhukov is a superme command level general, he often headed at least one or two Front Armies (couple million men overall) while Patton is a group army level commander (no more than 300,000 men under his command).

but Zhukov did conduct group army warfare when he was fighting against Japanese long before WW2, it was a small boarder clash, ended with japanese defeat losing 40,000 men while Zhukov lost 10,000 of his own, but ZHukov was outnumbered in that war (except he got more tanks).

Maybe I'm a bit biased but have to say Mannerheim.
Zhukov was quite lucky at the end of the war,when his advance to the heart of the third reich was almost put to jeopardy because his ambition.
Also Guderian wasn't able to keep control as much as he could have.
Mannerheim did amazingly through 3 decades considering the resources he had.

Originally Posted by cokeisthebest

it is really no comparison between Zhukov and Patton,
Zhukov is a superme command level general, he often headed at least one or two Front Armies (couple million men overall) while Patton is a group army level commander (no more than 300,000 men under his command).

You've given your 2 choices but you haven't really explained or argued why you think these 2 commanders were the best of WW2. For example, why is Patton a better Corps/Army commander than say Rommel or Guderian?

Zhukov was the best general. His achievements are as follows:

- Successful Defence of Lenningrad
- Mastermind of Russian Counter-offensive in Stalingrad (LOL! I would imagine the face of Hitler )
- Success of Battle of Kursk
- German Invasion

Now we should also keep in note that Russian military was not as advanced compared to Germans. Many of there weapons were of poor quality and German commitment in Russia was huge, so thats why so much casualties took place.

Rommel (German Desert Fox!) was defeated by Montgomery.

No-doubt, Zhukov destroyed the myth of Invincible Forces of Germany!

Originally Posted by TBA_PAKI

Zhukov was the best general. His achievements are as follows:

- Successful Defence of Lenningrad
- Mastermind of Russian Counter-offensive in Stalingrad (LOL! I would imagine the face of Hitler )
- Success of Battle of Kursk
- German Invasion

Now we should also keep in note that Russian military was not as advanced compared to Germans. Many of there weapons were of poor quality and German commitment in Russia was huge, so thats why so much casualties took place.

No-doubt, Zhukov destroyed the myth of Invincible Forces of Germany!

Hello.

What about Zhukov's defeat at Operation Mars? There were more Soviet forces at that battle than there was at Stalingrad and it was an utter failure.

What about the number of casualties that armies under Zhukov's command suffered against the Germans? The Soviets at each battle lost on average between 3 and 5 times as many men, tanks and planes as the Germans did.

Zhukov was not the only one responsible for the victory at Stalingrad. But then you probably haven't heard of General Chuikov who was equally if not more responsible.

The idea that the Soviet military was not as advanced as Germany's is patently untrue. Many of the Soviet weapons were as good as anything Germany had. For example the T-34, JS-1 & 2 tanks and the Ilyushin Il-2 CAS fighter were all top notch.

Zhukov was a fine strategic commander but his reliance on brute force and his seeming disregard for the men under his command means that he cannot be considered as the best commander of WW2 IMO.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Hello.

What about Zhukov's defeat at Operation Mars? There were more Soviet forces at that battle than there was at Stalingrad and it was an utter failure.

What about the number of casualties that armies under Zhukov's command suffered against the Germans? The Soviets at each battle lost on average between 3 and 5 times as many men, tanks and planes as the Germans did.

Zhukov was not the only one responsible for the victory at Stalingrad. But then you probably haven't heard of General Chuikov who was equally if not more responsible.

The idea that the Soviet military was not as advanced as Germany's is patently untrue. Many of the Soviet weapons were as good as anything Germany had. For example the T-34, JS-1 & 2 tanks and the Ilyushin Il-2 CAS fighter were all top notch.

Zhukov was a fine strategic commander but his reliance on brute force and his seeming disregard for the men under his command means that he cannot be considered as the best commander of WW2 IMO.

Once again, you have made some great points here Doppleganger.

I agree with you about Zhukov. He was a very ruthless general, but he also had a very ruthless boss.

I'd say Rommel because he invented the principal of the thurst line and beat the British for several years in North Africa so in my book he gets 1st place.Followed by Patton in 2nd and MacArthur in 3rd.