Most over-rated WWII Leader

I’m surprised to see General Patton’s name pop up in this discussion. The Germans considered him (correctly) to be the most capable, aggressive, and outside-the-box general the Anglo-American force had. It was precisely that belief which led the Germans to conclude Patton would be in charge of the D-Day invasion.

Patton was clearly superior to the slow, plodding Montgomery, or even to any of his American contemporaries (including Eisenhower). Many are aware that Patton’s performance in the Battle of the Bulge was brilliant. What is somewhat less well-known is that his performance in France as a whole was first-rate. Joseph Stalin said that the Red Army could neither have planned nor executed Patton’s advance across France. (And that was after many years of the Red Army fighting and gaining experience.)

Of all the generals the British or Americans had, Patton was the closest to a Guderian, a Rommel, or a von Manstein. Those four generals are characterized by a flexibility of thought, an understanding of the value of combined arms and of mobile warfare, and a skilled aggressiveness which made each of them highly formidable adversaries.

@Fishmoto37:

@trackmagic:

As far as overrated generals go I vote for MacArthur. What did he do besides loose the Philippine’s (when he had a 3:2 advantage over the Japanese) and loose the Korean war (ending with him being relieved of command).

Still he is looked at as one of the best generals of all time?

He did not LOSE the Philippines! His lines of supply were cut off buy the Japanese navy and air force. Most of his land forces were Philippine army. The U.S. air forces that were lost on the ground would only have prolonged the fight a little longer. He had no hope of resupply or reinforcement. He did not LOSE the Korean conflict. The North Koreans were soundly defeated. Then the Chinese started a totally new war. Truman was worried that MacArthur would escalate the war (which the Chinese had already done) so he relieved the general and settled for a stalemate.

Poor MacArthur had his work cut out for him for sure. Can you name anything that he was in charge of that he actually won?

@trackmagic:

@Fishmoto37:

@trackmagic:

As far as overrated generals go I vote for MacArthur. What did he do besides loose the Philippine’s (when he had a 3:2 advantage over the Japanese) and loose the Korean war (ending with him being relieved of command).

Still he is looked at as one of the best generals of all time?

He did not LOSE the Philippines! His lines of supply were cut off buy the Japanese navy and air force. Most of his land forces were Philippine army. The U.S. air forces that were lost on the ground would only have prolonged the fight a little longer. He had no hope of resupply or reinforcement. He did not LOSE the Korean conflict. The North Koreans were soundly defeated. Then the Chinese started a totally new war. Truman was worried that MacArthur would escalate the war (which the Chinese had already done) so he relieved the general and settled for a stalemate.

Poor MacArthur had his work cut out for him for sure. Can you name anything that he was in charge of that he actually won?

He was in command of the entire southwest pacific area. Seems like I heard that he did ok there even with the limited navy that he had.

@KurtGodel7:

I’m surprised to see General Patton’s name pop up in this discussion. The Germans considered him (correctly) to be the most capable, aggressive, and outside-the-box general the Anglo-American force had. It was precisely that belief which led the Germans to conclude Patton would be in charge of the D-Day invasion.

Patton was clearly superior to the slow, plodding Montgomery, or even to any of his American contemporaries (including Eisenhower). Many are aware that Patton’s performance in the Battle of the Bulge was brilliant. What is somewhat less well-known is that his performance in France as a whole was first-rate. Joseph Stalin said that the Red Army could neither have planned nor executed Patton’s advance across France. (And that was after many years of the Red Army fighting and gaining experience.)

Of all the generals the British or Americans had, Patton was the closest to a Guderian, a Rommel, or a von Manstein. Those four generals are characterized by a flexibility of thought, an understanding of the value of combined arms and of mobile warfare, and a skilled aggressiveness which made each of them highly formidable adversaries.

Yes, Patton was as good as we had in Europe and the Germans feared him.

I guess how one treats his soldier is irrelevant?

Patton was nearly court martialed for slapping a crying soldier in the face. I think that puts him front and center for " Worst World War II General " ever.

I think the most overrated leader is definitely Montgomery.

Nobody liked him, not even Churchill. He considered Operation Market Garden, as noted in his after battle reports to be a " moderate success. "

@LilTheo:

I guess how one treats his soldier is irrelevant?

Patton was nearly court martialed for slapping a crying soldier in the face. I think that puts him front and center for " Worst World War II General " ever.

I think the most overrated leader is definitely Montgomery.

Nobody liked him, not even Churchill. He considered Operation Market Garden, as noted in his after battle reports to be a " moderate success. "

Patton felt that if one soldier did less than his fair share, it meant some other soldier would have to do more than his fair share. To allow soldiers to abandon the front, therefore, represented an injustice to the other soldiers left behind to do the fighting and the dying.

There were two slapping incidents, including the one you mentioned. In both cases, Patton had encountered a soldier who had abandoned the front; and who had refused Patton’s command to return to combat.

Patton’s attitudes about this subject are largely a product of the culture in which he was raised. The U.S. has traditionally had four major cultural groups: the Puritan, the Cavalier, the Quaker, and the Borderer. Of those four, the Borderer is the most warlike. The Borderers are descended from people who lived in the six northernmost English counties, the Scotch Lowlands, and northern Ireland. For many hundreds of years, that region was a constant war zone. As a consequence of all that war, Borderers adopted warrior values; including the kind of contempt for personal cowardice Patton displayed in the slapping incidents.

The Quaker group was by far the most pacifistic, and tended to oppose all wars on principle. Eisenhower was raised in that cultural group, and adopted a milder version of that group’s distaste for war. His initial reaction to the slapping incident–a desire to remove Patton from command–was typical of how a Quaker would see such a situation.

Given the cultural backgrounds of the two men, one would expect that the warrior (Patton) would favor harsher treatment for postwar Germany than the one with qualms about war (Eisenhower). Oddly enough, the opposite proved the case.

Patton was relieved of duty after openly revolting against the punitive occupation directive JCS 1067.[49] His view of the war was that with Hitler gone, the German army could be rebuilt into an ally in a potential war against the Russians, whom Patton notoriously despised and considered a greater menace than the Germans. During this period, he wrote that the Allied victory would be in vain if it led to a tyrant worse than Hitler and an army of “Mongolian savages” controlling half of Europe. Eisenhower had at last had enough, relieving Patton of all duties and ordering his return to the United States.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Patton#Relations_with_Eisenhower

JSC 1067 was specifically intended to starve the German people, as indicated in the below quote:

On March 20, 1945 President Roosevelt was warned that the JCS 1067 was not workable: it would let the Germans “stew in their own juice”. Roosevelt’s response was “Let them have soup kitchens! Let their economy sink!” Asked if he wanted the German people to starve, he replied, “Why not?”[45] . . .

In his 1950 book Decision in Germany, Clay wrote, “It seemed obvious to us even then that Germany would starve unless it could produce for export and that immediate steps would have to be taken to revive industrial production”.[48] [Those steps were specifically forbidden under JCS 1067.]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan#JCS_1067

The fact that Eisenhower supported starving the Germans (JSC 1067), and Patton sacrificed his career to oppose the measure, tells me a lot more about the relative degree of kindness and morality the two men had, than does a mere slapping incident.

@Fishmoto37:

@trackmagic:

As far as overrated generals go I vote for MacArthur. What did he do besides loose the Philippine’s (when he had a 3:2 advantage over the Japanese) and loose the Korean war (ending with him being relieved of command).

Still he is looked at as one of the best generals of all time?

He did not LOSE the Philippines! His lines of supply were cut off buy the Japanese navy and air force. Most of his land forces were Philippine army. The U.S. air forces that were lost on the ground would only have prolonged the fight a little longer. He had no hope of resupply or reinforcement. He did not LOSE the Korean conflict. The North Koreans were soundly defeated. Then the Chinese started a totally new war. Truman was worried that MacArthur would escalate the war (which the Chinese had already done) so he relieved the general and settled for a stalemate.

I agree.  MacArthur was actually a great leader.  He just made a mistake by openly disagreeing with his commander-in-chief the President, Eisenhower.

@RJL518:

wow…where to choose…if i had to make one pick…i think it would be Gen. Montgomery…assume Hitler sends Rommel what he wants and TORCH doesnt happen…how do u think he would have done?

Monty started the Battle of El Alemein in October 1942, one month before Torch

@trackmagic:

As far as overrated generals go I vote for MacArthur. What did he do besides loose the Philippine’s (when he had a 3:2 advantage over the Japanese) and loose the Korean war (ending with him being relieved of command).

Still he is looked at as one of the best generals of all time?

How was the Korean war lost? It was a draw(status quo ante bellum)

@KurtGodel7:

@LilTheo:

I guess how one treats his soldier is irrelevant?

Patton was nearly court martialed for slapping a crying soldier in the face. I think that puts him front and center for " Worst World War II General " ever.

I think the most overrated leader is definitely Montgomery.

Nobody liked him, not even Churchill. He considered Operation Market Garden, as noted in his after battle reports to be a " moderate success. "

Patton felt that if one soldier did less than his fair share, it meant some other soldier would have to do more than his fair share. To allow soldiers to abandon the front, therefore, represented an injustice to the other soldiers left behind to do the fighting and the dying.

There were two slapping incidents, including the one you mentioned. In both cases, Patton had encountered a soldier who had abandoned the front; and who had refused Patton’s command to return to combat.

Patton’s attitudes about this subject are largely a product of the culture in which he was raised. The U.S. has traditionally had four major cultural groups: the Puritan, the Cavalier, the Quaker, and the Borderer. Of those four, the Borderer is the most warlike. The Borderers are descended from people who lived in the six northernmost English counties, the Scotch Lowlands, and northern Ireland. For many hundreds of years, that region was a constant war zone. As a consequence of all that war, Borderers adopted warrior values; including the kind of contempt for personal cowardice Patton displayed in the slapping incidents.

The Quaker group was by far the most pacifistic, and tended to oppose all wars on principle. Eisenhower was raised in that cultural group, and adopted a milder version of that group’s distaste for war. His initial reaction to the slapping incident–a desire to remove Patton from command–was typical of how a Quaker would see such a situation.

Given the cultural backgrounds of the two men, one would expect that the warrior (Patton) would favor harsher treatment for postwar Germany than the one with qualms about war (Eisenhower). Oddly enough, the opposite proved the case.

---

Patton was relieved of duty after openly revolting against the punitive occupation directive JCS 1067.[49] His view of the war was that with Hitler gone, the German army could be rebuilt into an ally in a potential war against the Russians, whom Patton notoriously despised and considered a greater menace than the Germans. During this period, he wrote that the Allied victory would be in vain if it led to a tyrant worse than Hitler and an army of “Mongolian savages” controlling half of Europe. Eisenhower had at last had enough, relieving Patton of all duties and ordering his return to the United States.

---

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Patton#Relations_with_Eisenhower

JSC 1067 was specifically intended to starve the German people, as indicated in the below quote:

---

On March 20, 1945 President Roosevelt was warned that the JCS 1067 was not workable: it would let the Germans “stew in their own juice”. Roosevelt’s response was “Let them have soup kitchens! Let their economy sink!” Asked if he wanted the German people to starve, he replied, “Why not?”[45] . . .

In his 1950 book Decision in Germany, Clay wrote, “It seemed obvious to us even then that Germany would starve unless it could produce for export and that immediate steps would have to be taken to revive industrial production”.[48] [Those steps were specifically forbidden under JCS 1067.]

---

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan#JCS_1067

The fact that Eisenhower supported starving the Germans (JSC 1067), and Patton sacrificed his career to oppose the measure, tells me a lot more about the relative degree of kindness and morality the two men had, than does a mere slapping incident.

In one of those cases, the soldier was sick/shell-shocked;

@Lazarus:

Incorrect. There is no verifiable German source that rates Patton as ‘the best’ Allied General.

General Rundstedt said that “Patton was your best,” and even Hitler described Patton as “the most dangerous man [the Allies] have.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Patton#Relations_with_Eisenhower

According to Wilcox and a number of other historians, Patton was the American general most feared by the Germans. See: http://www.amazon.com/Target-Patton-Assassinate-General-George/dp/1596985798

That Patton was the American general the Germans respected and feared the most is also a statement I have seen in other history books. If you feel some other American general deserves the credit for being the most highly regarded by the Germans, please provide both that general’s name and citations to support your claim.

@Lazarus:

He did not. The quote has been distorted and half of it ignored to falsely claim Patton was ‘the best’.
The actual words were:

""Montgomery and Patton were the two best that I met.

The above quote does not ring true. Based on everything I’ve read, Montgomery was a significantly inferior general to Patton. For me to accept a quote such as this, I will need to see a citation to a reliable source.

As for the rest of your post, I have already provided historical references from Wilcox and Alan Axelrod to support my statement that Patton was the most highly respected American general among the Germans. If that is not enough, however, I’ll provide you with a quote from his obituary, which appeared in the New York Times in December of 1945.

“Nazi generals admitted that of all American field commanders he was the one they most feared.” See http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1111.html

It’s difficult to get a hold of original sources, and  I don’t have a copy of Liddell Hart’s book. However, the freely accessible archives of the German magazine Der Spiegel provide some good clues about Lidell Hart interviewing captive German generals:

Für die Fähigkeiten und Leistungen der Alliierten fanden die deutschen Generale Worte der Anerkennung. Montgomery und Patton seien die fähigsten Männer, die ihnen überhaupt begegnet seien.

(from http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-44416969.html)
which translates as:
“The German generals found words of appreciation for the skills and achievements of the Allies. Overall, Montgomery and Patton were the most capable men they encountered.”

It is not specifically mentioned that (von) Rundstedt was among the generals who said that, but it seems likely: Liddell Hart did indeed meet Rundstedt there (see http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-25655614.html for some details - on a side note, in that article another German officer describes Rundstedt as “wise and clever, but very lazy”) and also Rundstedt’s chief staff, Blumentritt, whom he later befriended.
But the possibility exists that the quote was a consensus opinion offered by several German generals, Rundstedt being one of them.

On the other hand, there’s also evidence that Rundstedt indeed considered Patton more dangerous than Montgomery. Cornelius Ryan, in “A Bridge Too Far”, writes:

Throughout his career, Von Rundstedt had closely studied British military tactics; he had also, to his own misfortune, been able to observe American warfare at first hand.  He had found the Americans more imaginative and daring in the use of armor, the British superb with infantry.  In each case, however, commanders made the difference. Thus, Von Rundstedt considered Patton a far more dangerous opponent than Montgomery.  According to Blumentritt, Von Rundstedt viewed Field Marshal Montgomery as “overly cautious, habit-ridden and systematic.”

Ryan also mentions Blumentritt as his source, although it’s not entirely certain whether he actually met Blumentritt or consulted Blumentritt’s biography of Rundstedt.

Ausjezeichnet Herr Kaleun…you hit it!

@Herr:

It is not specifically mentioned that (von) Rundstedt was among the generals who said that, but it seems likely: Liddell Hart did indeed meet Rundstedt

He did say it and it is in the book. It is a authentic sourced quote.

@Herr:

But the possibility exists that the quote was a consensus opinion offered by several German generals, Rundstedt being one of them.

There is no ‘possibility’ about it. It was said. The quote is sourced along with other comments by Blummerit.

"What did the Germans think of their Western opponents? They were diffident in expressing an opinion on this matter, but I gathered a few impressions in the course of our talks. In reference to the Allied comanders, Rundstedt said: “Montgomery and Patton were the two best that I met. Field Marshall Montgomery was very systematic. He aded: “That is alright if you have sufficient forces, and sufficent time.” Blumentritt made a similar comment. After paying tribute to the speed of Patton’s drive, he added: “Field Marshall Montgomery was the one one general who never suffered a reverse. He moved like this” – Blumentritt took a series of very deliberate and short steps, putting his foot down heavily each time.” --“The German General Talk”, pp.257-58, by B.H. Liddell Hart

One has to wonder why doubt is being cast on this ranking of Montgomery with Patton. It would appear there are those who simply can not accept reality and prefer legend.

I have nothing against Montgomery. I also have no personal opinion on whether Montgomery or Patton was the greater general, or how good they were at all. To form such an opinion would require quite a bit of additional reading and analysis on my part, which is something I don’t intend to spend my time on.

Thank you for the quote. Like I said, I don’t have Liddell Hart’s book at hand, and based my statement on a report in Der Spiegel which mentions “The German generals”, quite possibly referring to both Rundstedt and Blumentritt, and maybe others.

But I don’t think that the quote from Ryan’s book can be written off as “legend”. Ryan refers to Blumentritt as well. I also don’t necessarily see a contradiction between these two statements, and I’m not sure whether in Rundstedt’s view, “more dangerous”, also meant “better overall” - that’s a suggestion created by Ryan’s wording.

We also need to consider that translation and re-quoting may have disrupted certain subtleties in the wording that we can’t reconstruct right now. Liddell Hart needed an interpreter to speak with the German generals at all.

I would consider Blumentritt’s book “Von Rundstedt, the Soldier and the Man” the authoritative source on this matter, but I don’t have the text of that book either.

The point is the original claim that The Germans considered Patton the ‘best’ Allied General. I gave a quote where this is contradicted and no quote confirming the ‘Patton is best’ claim can be found.
I have yet to see any quote showing a named General showing the claimed German ‘fear’ of Patton.

@Lazarus:

The point is the original claim that The Germans considered Patton the ‘best’ Allied General.

That “original claim” is too vague anyway. We would have to define who “the Germans” were, and how “best” should be interpreted. If we consider that “the Germans” would, in this context, probably refer to “a representative cross-section of senior German military commanders during World War II” (a formula which introduces new definition problems in itself, but I guess it will have to do), then I very much doubt that they have ever been systematically polled on ranking the qualities of their Allied opponents, from “best” to “worst”.

@Lazarus:

I gave a quote where this is contradicted and no quote confirming the ‘Patton is best’ claim can be found.

Hardly. It’s a quote of Rundstedt stating that Montgomery and Patton were the best. So that’s no more than one of “the Germans”, albeit a very distinguished one. It would have contradicted the original statement if Rundstedt had ranked Montgomery, or anybody else, over Patton, but he didn’t. And even if he had, any claim one way or the other about the opinion of “the Germans” would need to involve more than one of them.
Furthermore, this is no doubt not the only thought or opinion Rundstedt ever had on Montgomery, Patton, or other Allied military leaders. So if we do hold Rundstedt’s opinion for representative, and we want to decide whether in the end, he considered either Montgomery or Patton the better general, we need to look into what else he said about these men. And those sources are not easily found. I quoted Ryan’s book, who bases his statement on Blumentritt, and concludes that Rundstedt considered Patton more dangerous.
Again, we need Blumentritt’s book to better understand Rundstedt’s assessment.

@Lazarus:

I have yet to see any quote showing a named General showing the claimed German ‘fear’ of Patton.

I agree with you there. I don’t believe that “fear of Patton” was a major psychological concern with the German populace or military leadership during World War II.

Anyway, the whole topic mainly provoked my interest once actual quotes and sources were presented. Like you, I’m not much in favor of arbitrary claims.

@Cromwell_Dude:

Feel absolutely free to disagree, but I say Eisenhower.

To me it really depends on how you view Eisenhower, if you view him as a tactician and as a field commander then yes he is over rated. However Eisenhower’s strength was in his ability to make war while keeping the peace amongst those under his command and his allies. It was Eisenhower who it fell to, to defuse the explosive rivalry between Patton and Montgomery.

Eisenhower seemed to leave it to his generals to make the day to day decisions of the war while Eisenhower was more of a war room type figure. Never the less under Eisenhowers command the allies succesfully invaded France and went on to win the war on the Western front.

I think purely by his World War 2 reputation McArthur was a bit overrated, not the most but definetly at least a little. He made good on his rep in Korea when UN forces amphibiously attacked Inchon arguably saving the remaining UN forces in Korea from a crushing defeat.

Charles De Gaulle was also an overrated figure in my opinion, but I suppose that had its purpose to keep up the morale of the French under Nazi occupation and know that a Frenchman would be their liberator.

@Octospire:

To me it really depends on how you view Eisenhower, if you view him as a tactician and as a field commander then yes he is over rated. However Eisenhower’s strength was in his ability to make war while keeping the peace amongst those under his command and his allies. It was Eisenhower who it fell to, to defuse the explosive rivalry between Patton and Montgomery. Eisenhower seemed to leave it to his generals to make the day to day decisions of the war while Eisenhower was more of a war room type figure. Never the less under Eisenhowers command the allies succesfully invaded France and went on to win the war on the Western front.

Yes, this is correct.  Eisenhower wasn’t a “battlefield general” (something he himself recognized) but he did have exactly the right skill set needed for the critical job of Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force.  He was an excellent organizer and administrator – qualities he shared with his boss, George Marshall – and he knew how to make coalition warfare work, a task which required a great deal of political skill.  He made sure he had first-rate people on his staff and he gave careful consideration to their advice.  He respected front-line soldiers, understood the importance of their morale, and made a point of keeping in touch with them by (for example) visiting units and talking with the men.  The G.I.s in turn respected and trusted him; when he visited some paratrooper units just before D-Day, for example, one of the men told him, “Don’t worry, General, we’ll take care of this for you.”