The other day I was trying, for the third time, unsuccessfully, to write a suitable reply to Uroborus in the Vietnam thread of CI and I began thinking about Generals Gaip and Westmoreland and their relative merits and failures. My mind started to wander a little and it occurred to me that whilst the last (20th) Century was more than blessed with wars it produced very few Great Generals. Few wars had unexpected outcomes and most battles went to the stronger forces.

We once had a very interesting thread in this Forum on the “Greatest Leader of All Time” started by Jaffas85 in which everyone made suggestions as to whom they thought was the Greatest Leader of All Time. People had to explain why they had made the choice they did. Then we tried to find some criteria for defining a Great Leader and test the chosen Leaders against them. I found it a very enjoyable exercise. I was forced, in the end, to accept that DeGaulle was the Greatest Leader of all time!

I think we should do the same again with “Greatest General of Century Twenty”. Is any one else interested? If you are please post your General, justification and Criteria. I played Devil’s Advocate last time, as I do entirely too much of it elsewhere can I encourage someone else to take that position this time (Jazz, Cool, CB)?

Alternatively, this proposal could fall flat on its face.

Generals are measured by their successes, not their failures. General Dwight Eisenhower.
His birthday (1890) happens to be today, Oct 14th.

Ariel Sharon.

Justifications would be nice chaps.

I will propose Gen. George C. Marshall, cognizant though I am of the fact that he opposed US recognition of the then-fledgling state of Israel, a fact which does not endear him to me but which does not speak to his incorruptible integrity or his greatness, both of which were quite evident to his contemporaries. Truman in fact called him "The Great One". Marshall fought in the trenches in WWI, was Pershing's aide-de-camp during that conflict. To an overwhelming extent he built the US Army that would defeat the Axis powers in WWII.

The greatest of the generals, in my opinion, are those who have been able lead in the civilian and political sector as well. Marshall as Secretary of State under Truman was a prime mover in the rebuilding of war-ravaged European countries. Though assailed by McCarthy as a traitor, he was a plain-spoken American patriot, almost a man of another age. He was offered $1 million for his memoirs and refused it, saying, if I have the phrase correctly, that his memories belonged to the public.

As for Ike, I must confess that the no-longer-covert history of his eight years as Chief Executive tends to detract, at least in my mind, from his military accomplishments.

I think General George S. Patton was very good in the life story of George C. Scott, for which Francis Ford Coppola won a screenplay Oscar, if I'm not mistaken.

However, in truth my favorite General is General Washington, Jr., who drove Mary Ann Hobbs to a New York Sires Stakes victory at Yonkers Raceway in 1974, thereby becoming, at least as far as I know, the first black man to win a $100,000.00 harness race.

Another favorite is General Release, which is what you have to send the defendant when you've settled a case. I like General Release for a number of reasons, foremost among them the fact that he usually contains language indicating that he covers all claims "from the beginning of the world to the date of this release."

Sorry, I like stuff like that.

Justifications for Sharon?

Three words: Yom Kippur War.

Not that he didn't distinguish himself in the previous wars (and in between them) but in '73, by some accounts at least, he saved the country.

Coolupway, how about General Mills and General Motors? These were great men also.
I expect to see Doug MacArthur listed here presently.

When someone mentions 'general,' an image of George Patton automatically pops up in my head. Standing in Africa, helmet fixed tight displaying three stars, chin lost behind a large strap, pearl handled revolvers hanging from his side, hands on hips. He certainly had the image of a general down pat.

Patton created this image of himself quite deliberately as part of an overall persona, one that he perhaps modelled off a combination of leaders from previous battlefields. He was a very qualified military historian and tactician. Even from an early age Patton’s tactic had been to move forward at speed. When he was a young cadet lieutenant he qualified as a master swordsman in the U.S. Army and went to France to train with the French masters to improve his skill. When he returned he rewrote the armies sword fighting manuals and removed the ‘parry’ element. Defence just wasted time and lives. "Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.” He also represented the USA in the pentathlon at the 1912 Olympic games.

Patton insisted the U.S. military invest heavily in tank warfare after seeing them in action on French battlefields in WW1. He started the first tank school. He learnt to fly so he could observe a better perspective of his beloved tanks on the battlefield. In WW2 he took over and reorganised 2nd Corps in Africa after they where smashed at the Kasserine Pass, re-installed morale and got them on the front foot. He was first ashore in Sicily and his aggressive fighting made the Germans take notice. Wherever Patton went, that was the place the Germans assumed the main invasion would come from. This tied up many axis troops including crack Panzer divisions from Normandy. It would have been interesting to see what Patton could have achieved if he had of landed in France on D-Day but he made up for it once 3rd Army did get to shore. He ripped across France, getting behind large elements of the retreating German army and took whole divisions as prisoner. His army also had a large influence at Bastogne and in containing the Bulge. At the end of the European campaign 3rd Army had liberated 80,000 square miles and inflicted nearly 1.5 million enemy casualties (a ratio of 3-1) and contributed greatly to bringing the theatre to a close as timely as possible saving countless lives on both sides.

What I liked most about Patton was he’d say out loud things that needed to be said. The war beaurocrats and desk generals didn’t trouble him. War is a nasty business and people get killed. Let’s sweat now, do the ugly work and get it over with asap. He made no apologies for this. He saw Stalin and the Reds as a greater threat than Hitler and wanted to keep fighting through to Moscow. Controversial yes, but then look at the Cold War statistics. Patton was the right general at the right time. A warrior. It was almost like he was born and groomed to play his role in Africa and Europe. His death during the occupation of Luxembourg was sad but timely, sealing his reputation as one of the greatest fighting generals of all time.

"It's foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank god that such men lived."

Patton's famous 'Blood and Guts' speech

Patton at his best:

"No b*stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*stard die for his country". --

I can't justify it but Rommel would be my choice he was starved of forces, and if given his own orders would have beaten Montgomery and the face of the North African campaign woukldn have beeen totally different.
My view of Montgomery is also coloured by the fact that my dad was camped outside of Monte Casino for two weeks waiting for him to arrive to lead the procession past the destroyed monestary (Hearsay it may be , but I beleived my Dad!)

But Rommel lost.

I think without a doubt Rommel was the most resourceful of all the generals who fought the African campaign. He received the handle 'Desert Fox' for good reason. He was a master at laying traps and deceiving the enemy with tactics like having supply trucks drag logs and branches behind them to stir up the sand and give the impression of a large force moving across the desert.

He would have smashed the Brits if he had of received adequate reinforcements / replacements. He chased the British all the way to El Alamein and arrived at the defensive line with only 50 tanks. More than once he tried to convince Hitler how hopeless it was in Africa. After 'Torch' finally wrapped up the fighting there, Germany was down 200,000 captured crack troops that would have been very useful in Italy.

Rommel's story is an unfortunate one. From what I've read, he seemed a fine man and a brilliant general. He cut his own troops water rations to keep POW’s alive. Rommel saw the madness of the situation (and his leader). Once the USA had joined the theatre, he knew it was a lost cause and he made it known. This was to be his unfortunate end.

May I just briefly link to this site, as what is probably the most sacrilegious use of what I believe to be an actual Patton quote:

http://www.pmqnews.com/big_guys.htm

(Must confess I'm a bit surprised to see no mention of Petain in here so far. )

Snm’s very pertinent comment on Rommel "But Rommel lost" raises a more general point that is very important when trying to find the Greatest General of Century Twenty. What are the characteristics that define a great general?

Is winning everything? Even if we accept this as the crucial criteria in judging a general’s greatness how shall we compare a general who fights and wins a single battle and a war with a general that wins several battles and wars but loses his last battle? A general with vastly superior forces and allies (Eisenhower say) defeats a lesser enemy, a general with weak forces manages to avoid losing those forces in battle with superior forces and bring the enemy to the negotiating table (Gaip or Mannerheim say). How shall we decide between the relative merits of the two generals?

Can we assume that honour, personal valour and humane treatment of ones enemies are not relevant to the greatness of a Twentieth Century General.

So what are the characteristics we are looking for in this thread?

Tiel - agree with you- are Generals great by the battle or by the result of the war. I know it's a Navy Reference but was Nelson great because he died at Trafalgar or because his strategy at the battle won it!

Look, I don't care how much water Rommel gave his POWs, the fact is that Rommel was a Nazi. While he was busy running around Africa his colleagues back in Europe were busy shoving people into ovens, and considering Rommel's high rank I think it's only fair to assume he knew about this. Furthermore, had he conquered Palestine, as indeed he aimed to do, he would have brought the Holocaust to the Holy Land.

I don't care how brilliant he was- the man worked for Hitler.

Plus he lost (thank God).

Why is he even being considered?

Rommel is being considered because Fosse4 and Bertho either suggested him or made the case for him.

Rommel was never a member of the Nazi party. His outspokenness about Hitler in the later part of the war implicated him to the assassination attempt. He was given two choices, suicide and a state funeral, or a nazi trial for high treason that would have led to death by firing squad or similar. Fearing for his family’s safety he took the former option. As far as I know he was against the assassination plot fearing that Hitler would become a martyr and instead wanted Hitler bought to trial. He may have worked for Hilter, but he certainly didn’t think much of his boss.

I wasn't endorsing Rommels politics in any way(But having read the biographies I find myself agreeing with him, he was against most of the "racial" policies that Hitler proposed)
I was endorsing his military tactics which I thought was the point of the thread. I really have no interest in his political or religious allegieances.

Anyway, Patton's still my man.

Is anyone going to write up General Giap? He'd have to be a contender.. maybe?

The question of whether or not Rommel agreed with Hitler's policies is really just a matter of semantics in this context. The fact remains that he fought Hitler's war (and he wasn't just a foot soldier either). As far as I'm concerned, in so doing he abdicated any claims he may have had to greatness.

A general isn't just a tactician or a fighter or a higher-ranked soldier. A general is first and foremost a military leader. It seems to me that in order for any leader to be considered great, they have to have had a cause that was at least somewhat worthy. Obviously we can argue over the question of what constitutes a worthy cause till doomsday, but I'm sure we can all agree that Nazism was not one.

Rommel may indeed have been a great tactician, but he was certainly not a great general.

The case against Rommel seems to rest on the fact that he was one of Hitler’s generals and so fought for a cause that was (somewhat?) less than somewhat worthy. I would disagree with this position for two reasons.

First, I see no reason to judge generals in Century Twenty any differently to those of earlier periods. J. Ceasar was a scumbag on the make for a state on the make, Alexander had no political agenda to speak of, it is questionable that Ghengiz even regarded Chinese peasants as human. Take Sheridan, a more modern example, was his post US Civil War cause just? What for that matter about any pretender for any throne over the last 1,000 years, are Aristocracy, Feudalism or Monarchy one iota more of a worth cause than National Socialism? There is I contend no reason to exclude a General from consideration simply because the cause served or even embraced is unworthy.

Second, was it Nazism Rommel served or Germany? He was a soldier before Hitler came to power after all. ‘My country right or wrong’ is not a sentiment I would endorse, none the less to judge from posts it is quite common in FT forums. What should he have done when the Nazis came to power? Perhaps he should have left Germany, but wait a minute, what if as suggested above it was Germany he served rather than Hitler? Remember to the fate of those senior German officers that did leave Germany for service with the French Legion Etrangere.

Wait a minute: Nazism was SOMEWHAT less than worthy?!?!?

I'm sorry, I didn't read the rest of the post. I couldn't get past the first sentence.

SNM you should have read the rest of the post before criticising it. BEFORE THIS GETS TOO PERSONAL!
The thread started about Military People at a very high level of command, the majority of them would have been at the top of their profession before the relevant conflict even started, many had distinguished careers in other wars/battles.
Take for example Herman Goering - did you know that he took over the Red Baron Richthovens Flying Circus Squadron in WW1 - was an Air Ace and one of the most respected fighter pilots of his day. Is there any difference in him fighting the cause in WW1 and fighting the cause in WW2, yes there is - HINDSIGHT! There's no outcry about the horrendous life loss in WW1, there's no condemnation of the Generals for sending their troups across No-mans Land to get mown down in their hundreds of thousands and no condemnation of the poiticians who were giving the orders to carry on the war.
Can we keep this thread to military matters - I fully agree with your remarks about the holocaust and I'm not trying to sweep it under the carpet, It happened as a result of political instructions, it was carried out by military personnel and in my view showed the weakness of the Generals in charge of the operation so I'm sure we won't be seeing any of their names in the posts.

I read the rest of the post. Nothing in it changes the fact that Tielhard has posted that Nazism was "somewhat" less than worthy. I mean my God: what's next? A thread extolling Hitler's virtues? A post explaining that Stalin wasn't "wrong", just "misguided"?

Fosse, do you truly believe that the realization that gassing people to death by the millions after extracting their gold teeth and cutting off their hair to use as insulation in submarines was wrong required HINDSIGHT?!?!?