I can't say for certain, but couldn't it be that because of the Allies overall success the failures of the Allied commanders stand out more?

@AmericanLuke MacArthur is pretty much lambasted by historians as a general - his claim to fame was returning to an island he neglected to defend properly, the Philippines as a poor strategic target which he demanded as a matter of reputation and he wanted to start a nuclear war against China! As a politican though he did wonders, especially with his pragmatic decisions on Japanese society. The only names largely free of controversy on the western power camp are Alexander, Clark, Alanbrooke, Bradley, Nimitz and Eisenhower; much shorter than the German list.

@SchwitJanwityanujit Re: search. While zhukov is not a popular noun in any language, rommel is. It means simply "trash" or "mess" in Dutch.

@kubanczyk Thanks for the info, but I used the google books search tool :). I don't think there are many books in Dutch with 'trash' as a title!

This is a question with potential but right now it feels rather superficial (except for the last sentence!). A few remarks that come to mind: (a) Not sure all these people were so impressive; after all, as a group, they lost big time. Some, like Rommel and Manstein, were certainly accomplished generals, nevertheless even Rommel was soundly defeated by Monty (who somehow fell off your Allied list) and had to abandon his vaunted Afrikakorps to eventual surrender. Manstein, for all his tactical and operational brilliance, presided over defeat.

(b) Why is Dietl on the list? What did he do do be "master of the mountains"? (c) Your Allied list is strangely populated. Monty is out but Alexander in? (d) As for the Russian version, I guess you are less familiar with the Russian side. Zhukov may be the most famous Soviet commander but not neccessarily the most brilliant (try Chuykov or Rokossovsky or Vatutin, perhaps); he's also by far the most controversial with some thinking he was Hannibal reincarnate and others he was a bloody butcher. I tend to think he was a bit of both. (e) The German generals were made themselves great PR after

the war, not always justified. (f) The Luftwaffe , for example, was a bunch of amateurs who bungled all their important taks (Britain, Malta) and spent time and effort on pointless heroics. (g) Not sure google counts are a fine enough metric in this case.

@FelixGoldberg I did not include Montgomery because at El Alamein he had complete superiority in ground forces, outnumbering Romme 2:1 in tanks and 3:1 in other AFV's. Rommel's command also contained a large number of Italian soldiers which, as we saw in Operation Compass, was (except for a few elite divisions) of dubious fighting quality. When the dispositions were equal, Monty instead launched Market Garden in an effort to stop being sidelined by the Americans (Despite them contributing the most men and material) and was defeated by Model soundly.

Alexander on the other hand, kept up a steady advance in Italy despite continually having his divisions plucked away, first for Overlord then next for Dragoon, in very easily defensible terrain and against a very able defensive general (Kesselring). Under his command the Allied forces in Italy went through no major defeat like at Market Garden. Lastly, you may notice that I don't have an Allied list, otherwise those Soviet gentlemen would certainly be on it, but a comparison of such list would still find the Soviets short on the Germans.

Well, it's your list :) But comparing lengths of lists is a bit pointless unless everybody agrees on the criteria for inclusion. Anyhow, we have now @TeaDrinker's answer which, I think, subsumes all my points and more or less seals the discussion...

This is not an "impressive portfolio of (German) officers for WW2", but an extremely biased list of people in high military positions and of (sometimes temporarily) propagandistic value. Some gave devastating and/or unlawful military orders and are primarily known as war criminals or devoted Hitler followers. When they are featured in "popular media" or play a significant role in "military academies" this is just a late and hopefully last propagandistic success.

@lejonet8 like who exactly? If you're talking about Dietl, I listed him there because his command during Norway and Finland was very impressive, combating well-supplied enemies with his own limited resources. Same reason I admire Alexander.

@SchwitJanwityanujit Most of them: Kesselring: war crimes in Italy, misjudgment in north Africa; Richthofen: bombing of Guernica, bomb war against civil targets in Poland; Dönitz: late-war lunatic, disastrous submarine losses, suicidal attack orders agains superior targets; and so on.

I agree, this question is based completely on subjectivity.

To the person who started the bounty (or anyone really): why? Was Tea Drinker's answer not good enough? Also, did it cancel my previous accepted answer and then the bounty is awarded at my discretion?