Worst "Commander" of WWII?

rommels_ghost said:
Has anyone mentioned Mark Clark? The allies had a tougher time in Italy than they bargained for.
Click to expand...

Yep mentioned Mark Clark a few pages back, I am not sure he would be in the running for worst commander of WW2 but I think he should be in the running for worst allied commander of WW2.
 
Again, even if this thread is dead for quite a time now, I can't help but share my 2 Cents: worst commander of WWII is hard to tell, only thing I'm sure about is that I'd go for a French one. But if I had to pick one from them, I'd probably say it's General Flavigny. He had 300 tanks plus several mobile infantry divisions under his command to attack the German bridgehead at the river Meuse. If the Germans had lost the bridgehead, Guderian and his armored divisions would have been cut off from supplies. The bridgehead was guarded by nothing more than 30 Panzer IV tanks and some infantry; there wasn't any chance those forces could withstand the French counter-attack. But Flavigny in his wisdom decided, against his explicit orders, to stretch his forces to a 20 km defensive line instead of attacking...
 
While Goering was helping the RAF with some poor decisions/indecisions Leigh Mallory was helping the Luftwaffe with his treacherous behaviour.
 
Blasphemy I know, but although there are no doubt many more unworthy candidates, Montgomery, was an egotistical, megalomaniac, who was promoted to Field Marshal purely to retain parity with Eisenhower, on the backs of Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African and Indian troops under his command in the middle east. He refused to commit English troops when he could use Commonwealth or other Allied men. He "planned" and "planned" and "planned" and would not commit to anyone else's plans except his own - and Market Garden was an unmitigated disaster that he refused to take responsibility for right up to his death - even though he bullied Churchill and Eisenhower to make it happen and take the "shine" off that upstart Patton.
 
Clockwinder......Are you trying to say that English troops were not used so much in North Africa, well if that was so I would not have lost three uncles at the battle for El Alemien and another two on HMS Hartland while trying to put American Marines ashore. Britain and the Commonwealth lost 250.000 men in North Africa. Monty planned for the battle to last for around eleven days and that is what it lasted for. Also he made his plans flexible so he could switch from one part of the front to another which he did a number of times, to stop the Germans getting to settled at one spot. The out come was he won the battle and won it well when you think that the mine fields were five miles deep and where called the devils gardens by the Germans and the Tanks and Infantry had to fight their way through this first of all before they could close with the Germans. One tank commander was slow in advancing and said to Monty it is death to go in there, well after a few well chosen words from Monty they went into the minefield on the very narrow tracks cleared by the engineers and came under the usual 88 mm gun fire.
Yes Market Garden was a disaster, but it was only by chance it was a failure, had the attack gone in a few days earlier then a SS Division that had been pulled out of the Russian front would not have been there for R&R and to re-arm and requip. Yet had the plan worked it would have speeded up the end of the war. Okay there where warning signs that the German troops where there but my Regimental Chiefs chose to ignore them so that they could get in some action before the war ended, the failure was not all down to monty and even now we still don't now just how much he was told about the extra German troops that had been seen the area
 
Last edited:
Mnay of the deserving names are already there...

Just adding one more Marshall voroshilov of red army... A disastrous winter war, then almost lost leningrad (he actually lost his nerve) but timely calling of marshall zhukov in his place saved it...
 
Partisan said:
Adolf Hitler gets my vote, obviously politically savvy, but he had an over inflated idea of his ability as a general. Surrounded himself with sycophants and ultimately sowed the seeds of his own demise.
Click to expand...
Also my opinion

Of all the difficulties the Germans faced in waging World War II, the greatest lay in having their own Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, as their supreme commander—their worst general. Hitler had been allowed to gain too much control, even over the military commanders. To foresee Hitler's ultimate national goals, one had only needed to read Hitler's Mein Kampf, which was widely published and read during the late 1930s and early 1940s in Germany. Undoubtedly, many of the high ranking General Staff were among the many readers, yet still allowed themselves to be overtaken by the circumstances.

Panzercracker said:
So was Mussolini, Hitler was actually quite competent with strokes of genius, he just took too many decisions on his own shoulders.
Click to expand...
Was Hitler a military genius? No way!!!

The idea of him being militarily gifted really took hold after he took credit for the implementation of Blitzkrieg warfare and, combining that with the success of the Ardennes Offensive of 1940, defeated France in six weeks and sent English forces scurrying for the channel.

The idea of blitzkrieg warfare, however, did not originate with Hitler but more so with Generals like Guderian and the Ardennes Offensive was thought up and planned by Erich Manstein. To Hitler can only go the credit for recognizing the advantages of both and allowing them to be adopted.

Hitler's lack of military ability began to show in 1941 with the poor planning of the Barbarossa Offensive. Firstly, the terrible risk of a two front war was taken with little forethought. Secondly, there was a shortage of tanks and trucks and no provision for winter clothing or supplies. Thirdly, there was poor intelligence. Little was known about Soviet strength or weaponry nor was the draconian hold Stalin had on the country and its resources considered. Little preparation was done to rapidly convert or utilize the Soviet Railway Systems with their wide gauge tracking. The condition of Soviet roads, critical for Blitzkrieg warfare, was overestimated.

Also, Hitler insisted on dispersing his forces over the whole of the USSR with few, if any, points of thrust. Therefore, the further his troops advanced, the weaker they would become. He launched Typhoon, the attack on Moscow in October when any Wehrmacht meteorologist could have told him the fall rains would soon be coming followed by the hard frost and plunging temperatures. He went ahead anyway and, for this reason, forced his troops to fight a desperate winter campaign which destroyed much equipment, horses and men not to mention morale. On top of this disaster, he declared war on the United States without first ensuring that Japan would, in turn, attack the USSR from the east.

In 1942, he turned away from Moscow and made for Stalingrad and the Caucasus, leaving his left flank terribly exposed and manned only by troops from Italy, Hungary and Rumania. When the Soviets finally did attack, he refused to admit his error and would not withdraw the encircled 6th army.

I could go on but by the time these mistakes had been made, Germany simply could not win. The most that could be hoped for was some sort of stalemate or negotiated settlement with the USSR so that Germany could better face the western Allies but Hitler scuttled any such attempts, even forbidding Goebbels, who urged him several times to put feelers out to Stalin, from ever broaching the subject again.
 
LeEnfield said:
Are you trying to say that English troops were not used so much in North Africa, well if that was so I would not have lost three uncles at the battle for El Alemien and another two on HMS Hartland while trying to put American Marines ashore.
Click to expand...
God, I am sorry to hear that. That is an awful price for one family to pay.

My nominee for for worst commander is Adm. King. He is the one who refused to use the convoy system after the attack on Pearl Harbor in the Atlantic Ocean. Merchant ships were sailing from ports like Galveston, Tx., New Orleans, La., Pensacola, Fla., etc. carrying goods from the USA headed for northern ports such as New York and then the UK and they were being sunk in the Gulf of Mexico and as they sailed up the eastern coast of the USA. Many were sunk within sight of the US mainland! The reluctance to use the convoy system help with the high total losses for the Allies, especially in the first four months after war had been declared.
As it turns out he was a good administrator, not a good fleet admiral.
 
Clockwinder said:
and Market Garden was an unmitigated disaster that he refused to take responsibility for right up to his death - even though he bullied Churchill and Eisenhower to make it happen and take the "shine" off that upstart Patton.
Click to expand...

Monty took full responsibility for Market Garden, he just never said that it was an unmittigated disaster. He always maintained that it could have worked but didn't recieve enough support. Carlo D'Este states that Montgomery's admission of failure was unique: "the only admission of falure by a senior Allied Commander."

Eisenhower admitted it had been a failure only in private and had fully backed the plan going ahead from the moment Montgomery had presented it to him. He said later that "I not only approved Market Garden, I insisted upon it"

Montgomery himself said of Market Garden: "It was a bad mistake on my part – I underestimated the difficulties of opening up the approaches to Antwerp ... I reckoned the Canadian Army could do it while we were going for the Ruhr. I was wrong ............. In my — prejudiced — view, if the operation had been properly backed from its inception, and given the aircraft, ground forces, and administrative resources necessary for the job, it would have succeeded in spite of my mistakes, or the adverse weather, or the presence of the 2nd SS Panzer Corps in the Arnhem area. I remain Market Garden's unrepentant advocate"

And, on a side note, Patton was never Montgomery's rival. Patton was only at an equal level of command to Montgomery in North Africa and Sicily but beyond that he never commanded at the same level that Montgomery did and didn't achieve the level of successes or failures (rare though they were) that Montgomery did. Patton has no great battle victories to his name (only El Guettar could possibly count) and his single greatest achievement was the turning of the 3rd US Army at the Battle of the Bulge but beyond that his accomplishment are no greater than any of the other American Army Commanders.

If Montgomery had a rival in the European Theater of Operations it was Omar Bradley - who commanded at the same level he did from the end of Operation Overlord onwards - but Bradley's success rate is not that good either and his judgement was certainly as suspect as Montgomery's was during the Market Garden Offensive - particularly, in Bradley's case, for the Hurtgen Forrest Offensive and the Battle of the Bugle and the advance to the Elbe. However I doubt whether Monty counted Bradley as his rival either.

The point being that Patton's place in the pubic perception of history as being Montgomery's rival who Monty was constantly trying to upstage is a complete fabrication. Monty accepted Patton's strenghts and flaws and considered him a good general and the best thruster in the Allied Armies and would no doubt have loved to have had him under his command at several periods. It was Patton who hated Montgomery, not the other way round, it was Patton who was constantly trying to upstage Montgomery and the rivalry Patton believed that they had was purely in his mind.
 
Naddoður said:
Didn’t Zhukov suffer high casualties because of Stalin's insistence on him racing to Berlin rather than using a planned campaign?
Click to expand...
Actually, Berlin offensive was quite a thought-out operation. There is a legend that Stalin ordered Zhukov to force Soviet offensive in order to capture the city by May 1st - big holiday in Russia. In fact, by the mid-April Zhukov found himself in the far vanguard of the offensive: he already could see Berlin outskirts while his main rearward was still in Poland. In this situation Stalin couldn't Zhukov order anything like that, for example to take Berlin by storm - that would mean inevitable defeat. Instead, everybody was waiting Rokossovski to capture Vorpommern, so there wouldn't be any northern danger to Zhukov's armies aimed at Berlin.

I was talking about early months of war, especially Moscow defensive-offensive operation. Numerous mistakes, overestimates of Soviet defensive capabilities lead to a) enormous casualities, b) strategic losses. For example, 700 thousand people were captured near Vyazma village just near Moscow, and Zhukov practically allowed this to happen because he thought it would stop the German offensive for a while. When he was taking command at some front sector, he could throw several regiments into the battle against a single German one. That's why Russia even during defence have lost twice as many people as the Germans.

There were many more talented generals in the Soviet army, but Zhukov became a political symbol. His disposal could have made people think that 'now it's really bad' and was unthinkable.
 
Thanks for the info, Schmack

Let us hear some more about the Soviets war effort. In Western Europe your contribution to the victory in WWII is not highlighted as much as the American/British.

Cheers :smile:
 
Well the Russian did a good job at Warsaw when they sat out side the city waiting for the Germans to crush the resistance to save them the job
 
Hitler. Apart from his own poor choice Hitler must take responsibility for the poor choices of his subordinates.
Mussolini. 8 million Bayonets?
Percival; bungled Singapore
Douglas MAcArthur, who should have foreseen a Japanese attack on the Philippines but allowed his air forces to be caught on the Ground.
Stalin: would sacrifice anything or anyone.
 
Without doubt, IMHO, Arthur Percival. No greater or more stupid surrender of 140,000 men for absolutely no reason... I can't think of anything as bad...
 
virus said:
Without doubt, IMHO, Arthur Percival. No greater or more stupid surrender of 140,000 men for absolutely no reason... I can't think of anything as bad...
Click to expand...
While he wasn't a good general (if the high command had though he was, he would have been transferred to the African campaign months before) he didn't surrender that many troops, it was around 60,000 - 16,000 British, 14,000 Australian and 32,000 Indian soldiers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top