Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill and FDR As Military Leaders.

[JerseyJohn]

Mussolini's inspired thrusts into Southern France, Greece and Egypt were innovative, daring and produced decisive results -- the downfall of Fascist Italy. But are his achievements really that much more brilliant than the great commands issued by some of his contemporaries? Does IL Duce truly deserve the mantle of Greatest Military Leader of World War Two, or should others also be considered, that is the question.

[ April 25, 2003, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

Abilities, Scale: low, fair, medium, high, superb

Initiative - how good on grabbing the initiative

Inspiration - inspiration to troops

Strategy - how well person comprehend strategic situations

Decisions - result of decisions made

Innovative - How well adapt to new tech and thinking

Most important; decisions

CHURCHILL

Initiative; high

Inspiration; high

Strategy; medium

Decisions; medium

Innovative; fair

Diplomacy; high

ROOSEVELT

Initiative; medium

Inspiration; medium

Strategy; high

Decisions; Superb

Innovative; medium

Diplomacy; high

HITLER

Initiative; superb

Inspiration; high

Strategy; fair

Decisions; low

Innovative; high

Diplomacy; high

TOJO

Initiative; medium

Inspiration; low

Strategy; medium

Decisions; bad

Innovative; low

Diplomacy; low

STALIN

Initiative; medium

Inspiration; fair

Strategy; fair

Decisions; fair

Innovative; low

Diplomacy; fair

MUSSOLINI

Initiative; medium

Inspiration; low

Strategy; low

Decisions; low

Innovative; low

Diplomacy; low

BEST LEADER OF THE WAR-EFFORT; Roosevelt

[ April 25, 2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni

I was hoping this would be more of a discussion with people explaining their views in more verbal terms.

Good list, interesting evaluations and I agree with the end result. Ironically, FDR is the only one of the mentioned leaders who didn't attempt to influence his generals and admirals military plans; he limited himself to the grand strategy and left the rest to his professionals.

[ April 25, 2003, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

ROOSEVELT

Initiative; medium

Inspiration; medium

Strategy; high

Decisions; Superb

Innovative; medium

Diplomacy; high

How About No?

Initiative: Medium

Inspiration: Medium

Strategy: LOW (Lets have the Philippine Garrison Hold out Indefinetly)

Decisions: Low

Innovative: Medium

Diplomacy: Medium

Best Leader of the War Effort: CHURCHILL!!!!!

[JerseyJohn]

CvM

FDRs Phillipine decision, in which he had very few options after December 7th, can be weighed against several of Churchill's blunders.

Such as sending troops out of Libya, which was about to fall, to Greece, which was also about to fall. The net result being Greece fell to the Germans and the British did not have the troops needed to capture Tripoli.

There are also numerous other Churchill snafus involving Singapore and other sundry items which I'm sure will be discussed shortly.

Interesting and good viewpoint, very possibly correct. Churchill's leadership can be viewed from two different ways: first that it was his responsibility to directly influence the military decisions and he was more responsible than FDR in that respect. Or, second, that he did too much micromanaging and needless meddling in decisions that should have been left to his generals and admirals.

As in Kuni's entry I think more discussion and fewer lists would make for a more interesting thread.

[SpitfireMarkX]

What? Ill give that a try.

CHURCHILL

Initiative; Huge

Inspiration; Huge

Strategy; High

Decisions; High

Innovative; fair

Diplomacy; high

ROOSEVELT

Initiative; Very Low

Inspiration; medium

Strategy; medium

Decisions; Superb

Innovative; medium

Diplomacy; high

HITLER

Initiative; huge

Inspiration; huge

Strategy; medium

Decisions; fair

Innovative; high

Diplomacy; low

TOJO

Initiative; medium

Inspiration; Very High

Strategy; medium

Decisions; bad

Innovative; low

Diplomacy; low

STALIN

Initiative; medium

Inspiration; fair

Strategy; fair

Decisions; fair

Innovative; very high (Urals)

Diplomacy; Very Low

MUSSOLINI

Initiative; medium

Inspiration; low

Strategy; Very low

Decisions; low

Innovative; low

Diplomacy; low

I'd give the Prize to churchill, too bad he wasnt priminister earlier, would have not givien Hitler Munich, and could have beaten him early.

[ April 25, 2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Brad T. ]

[Kuniworth]

I dont agree Mannerheim. Roosevelt showed more than the others a modern political thinking, often relying on military commanders and on the strength of his nation. His decisions of Germany first, early France-invasion instead of Italy, lend-lease, demand of unconditional surrender of germany(a wise decision, trying to prevent arguement that arose after ww1 of German army not defeated) is some decisions that more and well weights up the Philliphines debacle and the problem at Jalta with Stalin.

But in the long run Roosevelt arises as a wise and calm leader with sound policies and capable of handling a determined resistance. I dont even consider the politics towards Japan resulting in Pearl Harbor as wrong, instead Japans decision to launch an attack on US were shortsighted and a result of policies in Japan by an agressive military leadership.

When we consider the others I must consider Mussolini the worst. His worst qualities is without question first of all his bad knowledge of what his own armed forces could achieved resulting in prolonged conflict in Yugoslavia and Greece. And secondly he lacked a plan of how to create a strong Italy, puttin his fate in the hands of Germany, letting them be in charge of his own foreign-policies. Not only during the war but even in the 30´s.

Stalin and Hitlers problem were without question their own dictatorship letting them interfere in areas they did not understand. Hitlers great achievments is often a result of releasin superior forces and diplomacy on an unknowing and unprepared world(chezcoslovakia, anschluss and military speaking campaigns in Poland and France etc). Stalins achievments are mostly a result of having superior forces while purely strategically and military losing out on comprehending situations.

Churchills high rating in inspiration is mostly a result of him early realizing the threat and potential of the german enemy. People therefore leaned on his leadership. Purely military he made a lot of errors in Norway, France(BEF under command of UK), Italian campaign and disasters of Singapore 15th feb 1942 etc.

[Kuniworth]

CONCLUSIONS;

I think one thing that strikes me is that the democratic countries often made in comparison to dictatorships quite good decisions. If this is a result of the quality of the leaders or a result of the democratic model I love to see more closely examined.

[SpitfireMarkX]

Jersey, If Churchill was able to send the original forces he wanted to send to Greece it would have been different (I believe it was a load of air, 2 divisions and a tank Brigade) but the Greeks didnt wanna agrivate the Germans so they didnt let them come, by the time the allies was allowed in, the Germans were already there and the allies could not build any defences in the northern mountains. Libya was already won. In the Pacific, simply enough, Curchill didnt do bad, especially in Singapore, the place was set to be a fortress if the generals in charge would have built reasonable defences.

[JerseyJohn]

Brad

Interesting views. Churchill would never have been a pre-war peacetime Prime Minister, he was radically conservative about maintaining the Empire as British Colonies when the population of Britain was solidly in favor of granting them sovereignty and transforming the Empire into the Commonwealth. He was voted out of office as soon as it became apparent that the war was won.

Later, his post war stint as PM was noteworthy mainly for it's titanic discords.

I agree he was a great man, one of the greatest of modern times, but his historical image is distorted out of proportion by the propaganda of the age. As for his inspiration, it wasn't really that universal, there is a lot of film footage cut from newsreels and rarely shown of Londoners and other Britons cursing him and booing when he made remarks such as, "We can take it!" In one such scene taken in a London district reduced to rubble, a cocney woman shouts back, "We're the ones'whose having to take it, not you!" But the man had enough grace not to shout back, instead he bowed his head and was driven off.

None of which is meant as a blanket put down of the man, I'd just like to see them objectively.

Once again, it would be good if we can get away from these lists and turn this into a discussion.

[JerseyJohn]

Brad

A great point not often mentioned.

You're right, a lot of the problem here needs to be shouldered by the Greeks. They thought the Germans would allow them to keep their war limited to the Italians with the Germans and Brits not getting involved.

Terrific point and very glad you brought it up.

I don't think Britain had anywhere near the resources to realistically help Greece out in any case, so perhaps the Greeks were right, probably they should have appealed to the Germans for a diplomatic settlement with the Italians; they were leaning toward the Axis before Mussolini's irrational invasion.

In any case, I think the Brits should have driven on to Tripoli before doing anything else. Both Wavell and O'Connor were amazed that they weren't allowed to do so.

[ April 25, 2003, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

Sending troops to Greece were nor the less strategically a bad decision. A clumsy decision much colored by the attempt to keep domination in the mediterranean, motivated partly by unrealistic reasons that made no sense.

[SpitfireMarkX]

People therefore leaned on his leadership. Purely military he made a lot of errors in Norway, France(BEF under command of UK), Italian campaign and disasters of Singapore 15th feb 1942 etc.

Churchill was never allowed to fight in Norway, he wanted to but couldn't. There was even a plan for a Canadian liberation of Norway, but his Generals informed him that the planned Canadian divisions could not fight on ski's, and both King (Canada's PM) and Curchill wanted to launch "opperation Jupitar" France had fallen, and it was 0 fault of the BEF, and, the only real fight they had was dunkirk which was a major success, if I may recall Churchills speach........... "

"The position of the B. E.F had now become critical As a result of a most skillfully conducted retreat and German errors, the bulk of the British Forces reached the Dunkirk bridgehead. The peril facing the British nation was now suddenly and universally perceived. On May 26, "Operation Dynamo "--the evacuation from Dunkirk began. The seas remained absolutely calm. The Royal Air Force--bitterly maligned at the time by the Army--fought vehemently to deny the enemy the total air supremacy which would have wrecked the operation. At the outset, it was hoped that 45,000 men might be evacuated; in the event, over 338,000 Allied troops reached England, including 26,000 French soldiers. On June 4, Churchill reported to the House of Commons, seeking to check the mood of national euphoria and relief at the unexpected deliverance, and to make a clear appeal to the United States.

From the moment that the French defenses at Sedan and on the Meuse were broken at the end of the second week of May, only a rapid retreat to Amiens and the south could have saved the British and French Armies who had entered Belgium at the appeal of the Belgian King; but this strategic fact was not immediately realized. The French High Command hoped they would be able to close the gap, and the Armies of the north were under their orders. Moreover, a retirement of this kind would have involved almost certainly the destruction of the fine Belgian Army of over 20 divisions and the abandonment of the whole of Belgium. Therefore, when the force and scope of the German penetration were realized and when a new French Generalissimo, General Weygand, assumed command in place of General Gamelin, an effort was made by the French and British Armies in Belgium to keep on holding the right hand of the Belgians and to give their own right hand to a newly created French Army which was to have advanced across the Somme in great strength to grasp it.

However, the German eruption swept like a sharp scythe around the right and rear of the Armies of the north. Eight or nine armored divisions, each of about four hundred armored vehicles of different kinds, but carefully assorted to be complementary and divisible into small self-contained units, cut off all communications between us and the main French Armies. It severed our own communications for food and ammunition, which ran first to Amiens and afterwards through Abbeville, and it shore its way up the coast to Boulogne and Calais, and almost to Dunkirk. Behind this armored and mechanized onslaught came a number of German divisions in lorries, and behind them again there plodded comparatively slowly the dull brute mass of the ordinary German Army and German people, always so ready to be led to the trampling down in other lands of liberties and comforts which they have never known in their own.

I have said this armored scythe-stroke almost reached Dunkirk-almost but not quite. Boulogne and Calais were the scenes of desperate fighting. The Guards defended Boulogne for a while and were then withdrawn by orders from this country. The Rifle Brigade, the 60th Rifles, and the Queen Victoria's Rifles, with a battalion of British tanks and 1,000 Frenchmen, in all about four thousand strong, defended Calais to the last. The British Brigadier was given an hour to surrender. He spurned the offer, and four days of intense street fighting passed before silence reigned over Calais, which marked the end of a memorable resistance. Only 30 unwounded survivors were brought off by the Navy, and we do not know the fate of their comrades. Their sacrifice, however, was not in vain. At least two armored divisions, which otherwise would have been turned against the British Expeditionary Force, had to be sent to overcome them. They have added another page to the glories of the light divisions, and the time gained enabled the Graveline water lines to be flooded and to be held by the French troops."

There is more, but that gives ya the picture.

[ April 25, 2003, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Brad T. ]

[SpitfireMarkX]

Also, another one of Churchills plans which was good, (But Roosevelt didnt want it) was to storm through the desert, and then make the Germans fight on more fronts, I believe it had a British force lead by the 8th Army and possibly another from the mainland librating Greece, USA Attacking Italy with major force, 1st Canadian Army liberating Norway, all to take place in late 43, then after about a year, landing in France.

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni

Interesting points and agreed about Greece. It would have made a great British asset, even just Crete if possible, but at the time Britain's ambition to occupy any of it was unrealistic.

[JerseyJohn]

Brad

Great assessment of the fall of Belgium. King Leopold's decisions were very poorly timed. Prior to all this, up till 1936 he had an outright defence alliance with the French which he ought to have stuck with. It didn't take much foresight, especially after the invasion of Poland, to see that a German move through the Low Countries and definitely through Belgium couldn't be far off.

Over the years I've know at least a dozen Frenchmen who fought in the French Army during 1940, a few became German prisoners, one fled successfully to Switzerland, one was evacuated at Dunkirk and always mentioned in the British defence that they took Frenchmen even while leaving some of their own comrads behind.

About half of them felt betrayed by the B. E. F., feeling that it should have fought it's way back to France along with the even larger number of French troops in the area and with any Belgians still willing to fight. I've also read and seen in documentaries that a few French Generals felt the same way. But you bring up a great point here. If the B. E. F's. supply line had already been cut here they may not have had a choice in the matter.

The R. A. F. was most certainly wrongly maligned by the ground troops; most of their fighting took place in skys miles away from Dunkirk so the ground troops never saw most of it.

Probably the true Miracle of Dunkirk was the glassy smooth water. If it had been even slightly choppy the operation would have been greatly compromised. If it had been really rouch it could not have taken place at all.

You guys are making this a great thread.

[HolzemFrumFloppen]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Ironically, FDR is the only one of the mentioned leaders who didn't attempt to influence his generals and admirals military plans; he limited himself to the grand strategy and left the rest to his professionals.

He was also the leader of the only nation in the list who -- somewhat ironically -- didn't have to worry a smidgen about (a) hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers closing in on his capital, ( daily bombing raids against his own cities and © a constant lack of natural resources.

As much as I am a complete and utter fan of FDR, methinks things would have been quite different if had to deal with the crises that other leaders weathered. He might have butted in a lot more if the enemy was at his gates, to coin an oft-hackneyed phrase.

However, I will say that he had the most foresight and intelligence to slap down the "red-baiters" in his own country (and, quite often, at the highest levels of the British government), treat the USSR with kid gloves, and supply them as much as possible since they were -- as he readily admitted both in public and private correspondence -- shouldering the burden of the war. In my mind, it took a bigger man to do THAT in the face of criticism than anything else.

Roosevelt had a knack for facing the truth, no matter how unsavory; and that rare ability will take any "commander" very far. A 4-termer... imagine that.

[JerseyJohn]

Brad

Agreed about Singapore, Churchill had nothing to do with the way it was laid out and expressed his open amazement when he found out. I believe his words were something like, "It no more occurred to me to build a fortress without landward defenses than it would to build a battleship without a bottom!" Except he put it more eloquently, of course. I'm pretty sure CvM knows the exact quote.

What I'm faulting him on is the way he sent tens of thousands of troops there even after Percival told him the problem wasn't too few troops, but too few supplies. Sending reinforcements only worsened the problem and nearly all of them had to surrender without seeing any action.

[SpitfireMarkX]

That was a churchill quote there Jersey.

[JerseyJohn]

HolzemFrumFloppen

Great to see you posting here as well as that, uh, other Forum.

Agreed entirely, with a bit less security his decisions might well have been done differently.

Of course, FDR had a greatly different background from the others, having been a lawyer and then working his way up through the New York political ranks. This difference of experience probably had a lot to do with his approach to leadership. He had much in common with Churchill in this respect, even down to both having held high posts in their respective naval departments, but Churchill had more of a direct military upbringing which showed throughout his political life.

[ April 25, 2003, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Brad T.:

That was a churchill quote there Jersey.

Yes, that's who I thought I was quoting. I'm just not sure whether I worded it correctly.

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni

Oddly enough, Mussolini was actually a pretty effective peace time leader. In fairness to his 1940 bungling, he'd been assured by Hitler that he wouldn't have to deal with a major war till late 1941 at the earliest, and that was the schedule he was keeping.

The Italian Government was so enraged by Hitler's surprise move on Poland that Count Ciano (Mussolini's son in law but also a key figure who did much of the liason work with Germany), was so enraged he wanted to sever all ties with Germany and have Italy go it's own way, even if that meant an alliance with Britain. Churchill also put great effort into getting Mussolini to annul the Axis, pointing out Italy's precarious situation and assuring him that Britain would more than fulfill all the Trade needs Germany had created for her by going to war.

Mussolini's answer was to declare Italy a non-beligerant, which he clarified by saying that wasn't the same as being neutral.

Given the country's limited industrialization and resources, Mussolini accomplished quite a bit in elevating her pre-war status. His main problem was, when the big war finally came, Italy had fallen too far behind. The Italy of 1935, for example, was much more powerful in relation to the other European powers.

In early 1940 von Rundstedt summed the situation up best. At a military conference most of the generals were supporting Hitler's view that Italy should enter as soon as possible. When the topic came to von Rundstedt he said something like this: "If they remain neutral we'll need a mountain division to watch the Alpine passes. If they join the English we'll need two mountain divisions to defend those passes. If they join us we'll need to send a dozen divisions to defend Italy."

[Panzer39]

If your talking about peace time too, Roosevelt was the closet President America had to a dictator. He served four terms and wanted to off set the balance of powers by adding justices to the supreme court. I judge this negitivly but than I don't rank Roosevelt in the top 5 American presidents like most people do. His political decisions are either good or bad depending on how you view them. His decision to cut off Japan's flow of oil basically guaranteed a war or at the very least new Japanese aggression. While appeasement would not have been the answer, perhaps a direct stand over Japanese actions in China could have prevented Pearl Harbor from even happening. But as some conspiracy theorists suggest, (I don't agree) Pearl is what he needed and even wanted so that he could get the public support to join the fight. Now if that indeed was true than his politics were excellent but his morality on the same level as his enemies.

I just finished reading a 800 page book on Huey Long. I have to wonder what would the politics of WWII have looked like if he had been not been shot and instead elected President in the place of Roosevelt's 3rd term. The King Fish and the IL Duce had a lot in common

[JerseyJohn]

Panzer

Great points. I think Huey would have remained neutral officially but unofficially favorable to the Axis, exactly the opposite of FDR.

I've always felt FDR's handling of the Japanese was extremely foolish. Unless his intention was to force them into a war with the United States, which is a popular theory going back almost to the time of Pearl Harbor itself.

In actual wartime handling of the country, Abraham Lincoln is the closest the U. S. has come to being led by a dictator. He suspended the right of Habeus Corpus, encouraged the imprisonment of thousands of suspected southern sympathizers and, at one point, wanted to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

He made a legalistic mistake at the outset of the war. he ought to have announced the southern ports closed to trade. That would have meant they were still under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and not open to foreign commerce. Instead he pronounced them to be in a state of blockade, which automatically acknowledged the fact that they were no longer under Federal control. A small mistake but one that England and France both understood.

Ironically, Lincoln and FDR, the two presidents who bent the most laws, were both attorneys by profession. Lincoln said Habeus Corpus was only a loophole to benefit thieves and scaliwags and of no purpose to an honest citizen!

[Panzer39]

Agreed, my statement about FDR referred to a president in peace time. Don't even get me started on the civil war Well maybe one statement, the South threatened to secedeif Lincoln was elected and sworn into the office. Lincoln claimed before being sworn in that he intended to save the Union. Why than did he not simply drop out? It would not have solved anything, the problems would have still been there; however, whoever assumed office might have gone with the other Northern opinion at the time and simply let the South go. We could have ended up with two countries and a Harry Turtledove Novel as fact rather than fiction. Well except I would make Huey president of the South going into WWII

To bring the discussion back on train, I have a lot more respect for Truman than FDR, but thats mostly because he put McArthur in his place after the war, so I guess he doesn't count. The decesion to go ahead with the Bomb however was a huge one that took a lot of courage and shaped the post war world.

[ April 25, 2003, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]