Worst Military Commander of WWII?

[CombinedArms]

So, guys, who was it? Who wins the booby prize?

I deliberately phrased it as the worst "military commander" rather than "general" so that I could include my own nomination. Perhaps it's too obvious: Adolf Hitler.

To get the definition clarified, I'm suggesting Hitler as a military commander because he exercised direct control over military operations--increasingly so as the war unfolded. Stalin also seems to fit this definition (and he's another candidate for the "honor," particularly for his mishandling of the early war, though he got better--and more inclined to listen to his generals--later.) FDR wasn't a military commander in the same sense, because he left most of the combat decisions to the professionals, only occasionally stepping in to resolve high level disputes. Churchill's sort of a half-way case: more active than FDR in operations, but his staff and allies headed off a lot of his worst ideas.

To move on to Hitler's qualifications as worst military commander of WWII, he was, despite some flashes of intuitive insight, personally responsible--through direct, violently worded orders, usually over his general's objections--for many of the great German debacles of the war. For example:

1. The Stalingrad encirclement. Losses, 200,000 troops, or more. Hitler refused to allow a breakout until is was too late.

2. The loss of 250,000 troops in Tunis. Hitler insisted, over Rommel's objections, on a great buildup of forces, all of whom were captured.

3. Hitler fell for the Allied ploy planting the dead "major" in Spain with phoney plans for an invasion of Greece when the real target was Sicily. The loses in Tunis and Sicily caused Italy to dump Mussolini and evetually change sides.

4. Hitler refused to allow divisions to be moved from Pas de Calais long after it was obvious that no second invasion was coming there.

5. Hitler insisted on holding the line in Normandy (despite denying his generals the divisions in Calais they needed to do that.) Losses above 200,000 during the inflexible defense, when a fighting retreat seemed called for.

6. Hitler insisted on the Mortain counterattack, thus allowing his Normandy armies to be encircled, losing a bag of at least 60,000 killed and captured.

7. Hitler insisted on the Ardennes counteroffensive, then operation Nordwind, thus casuing his armies to lose virtually of all their mobile reserves. Another 200,000+ losses.

8. While the Allies kept virtually the same command team in place from 1942 on, Hitler kept sacking or killing his best Generals, while allowing Herman Goering to continue to command the Luftwaffe despite manifest incompetence.

All in all, Hitler's policies of inflexible defense (as in Stalingrad and Normandy), reinforcing failure (as in Tunis), and irresponsible wishful-thinking-based counterattacks (Mortain and Ardennes) cost the Axis possibly 800,000 men or more and may have lost the war or at least hastened its close. That ranks for me as "worst military commander of WWII."

[Dittohead]

I vote for Fat Boy Herman Goering.

[Barticus]

Herman Goerring?

Yah, he gets my vote too, the fat pig.

[Snake Eyes]

Adolf Hitler; without a doubt. Not only did he make numerous strategic and tactical blunders, his military decisions all but guaranteed that a large portion of Germany would be under Soviet domination for decades.

[YECoyote]

Douglas Macarthur. The biggest boobie in the history of warfare.

He had full warning about the attack on Pearl Harbor, yet, he did not scramble his bombers on the Phillipines and they all got wiped out on the runway.

Then, there's the "Let's go all the way to China" in Korea.

[ntg84]

himmler

[tiborhead]

I'd have to say Hitler wins the pickle.

[mensch]

Thats easy, ME!.. let me explain.

Feb. 2001 I sit down for a game and I order my tanks to move in to the town, things look good 5 Panthers a full platoons worth with two Platoons of Panzer Grenadiers as support. I call in some of my 120mm on the town to soften them (bloody Canucks) up.

First round two panthers go up in flames, ok.. not so good what was it? bad day? the felt they could set up a grill party inside the things? nope no idea, then burst bang pop... two squads are running for the hills all cut up and messy like.. hmm well well I didn't see that mine field and two vickers over there.. bugger that.

later in the game I decide to be a wee bit cautious, oh btw 17pdrs took out those panthers but I taught them a lesson or two, crap arty is falling on me.. arrgh.. wait.. er.. thats mine.. ooo-k, shoot that FO.

later in the game: Ha! my tanks are in the village Poof kaboom... you know one thing interesting about PIATs is you don't know where they be shooting from.. well that finishes off my Panthers with a kill tally of two 17pdrs, two cheezy universal carriers and a monkey's uncle.. jeez.

turn later: right I got me troops right? noope seems the computer likes flamethrowers too for some reason; roasting a squad and a half and setting them off running out in the field only to get shot by some cockey morons from Winnipeg... dammit.

near the end: so me sets off to flank the canucks, who are now happly singing "God Save the Beer and Backbacon" pumping my lads full of pure canadian lead (otherwise known as canadian pennies now a days)

ok right.. so what did I learn.. no idea i fired up the saved game and tried again ha! did better I not only killed one more squad I got the booby prize of Stomp'n Tom singing over my dead troopers graves and i think...

do i get a prize?

[Gyrene]

Colonel Klink.

Adolph & Benito for a two way tie for second place.

Third place is that Admiral that Halsey replaced (Gormley?)

Gyrene

[mensch]

actually no wait, Hiram Sedai… I mean who could get a score of "0" and not kill anyone in a game against.. er.. some guy who is not realy important anyhow...

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YECoyote:

Douglas Macarthur. The biggest boobie in the history of warfare.

He had full warning about the attack on Pearl Harbor, yet, he did not scramble his bombers on the Phillipines and they all got wiped out on the runway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're joking, right?

1) There is absolutely no reliable evidense that anyone was fully warned about Pearl Harbor

2) MacA had nothing what-so-ever to do with Pearl Harbor

3) His bombers weren't at Pearl Harbor... thus, they couldn't have been destroyed on the ground during the attack

4) The responsibility for the disaster at Pearl Harbor rests entirely on the Navy's shoulders

[kverdon]

Berli,

No, he's not kidding, you just missed what he was talking about.

MacArthur was the commander of the forces in the Philipines at the start of the war. Even after learining about the attack on Pearl Harbor, his inactivity allowed the Japanese to destroy most of his airforce in the Phillipines on the ground. He knew that Pearl had been attacked and that he was likely to be next on the Japanese agenda but when into a bit of shock and didn't take the actions necessary to defend his command.

Kevin

[Agua]

Berli,

I think his point was that the attack on PH occurred several hours prior to the attack on the Phillipines. The American bases in the Phillipines were the other large US military presence in the Pacific. McArthur was aware of the attack on Pearl Harbor (not prior knowledge), and yet did not scramble the bombers from the bases.

Then again, maybe he meant McArthur was aware of the planned attack on PH and I'm just full of crap.

[Pzman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

You're joking, right?

1) There is absolutely no reliable evidense that anyone was fully warned about Pearl Harbor

2) MacA had nothing what-so-ever to do with Pearl Harbor

3) His bombers weren't at Pearl Harbor... thus, they couldn't have been destroyed on the ground during the attack

4) The responsibility for the disaster at Pearl Harbor rests entirely on the Navy's shoulders<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your about to get shot down by a Canadian who may know more about it than you do. As the others said about the Philippines there right. As for the Navy well... all they had was battle ships... what on earth do those junk heaps do? Apparently a few months earlier Station X in England intercepted a Japanese message that was telling Hitler that they were going to Bomb PH. The date, time everything. Wether they told the Americans can still be debated.

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[Rupert_2]

It would have to be Himmler or MacArthur !!

[Blenheim]

Well, I think I'll split my vote.

option A. Fatty Goering. Not a single thing done right. "Yes, we can resupply Stalingrad"... oh, bollocks.

option B. That brilliant Italian General on North Africa, that surrendered when facing a British force less than half the size of his. Damm, I don´t remember the name.

Honorable Mention: Ernst Udet. A guy that asked for all the bombers of the Luftwaffe dive bombing capabilities (the JU 88 could divebomb, yes... ) must be mentioned. Not to talk about his management of the purchases orf the service.

[Enoch]

To be honest I cannot beleive that anyone here actually thinks that MacArthur was the worst military commander of WWII. Did he make some mistakes early on in the Phillipines? Yes. But, I think no matter who was in charge there would have found it nearly impossible to sucessfully defend the islands under those conditions. American forces did not fully surrender until May of 1942. Fully 5 months after Japanese forces first landed.

He was also very sucessful in his island hoping campaign in the Southwest pacifc with limited resources.

Was MacArthur the greatest military commander of WWII? No, and by some he is probably overated. He made mistakes, as does everyone. Was he the worst? I find that a little hard to believe.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kverdon:

Berli,

No, he's not kidding, you just missed what he was talking about.

MacArthur was the commander of the forces in the Philipines at the start of the war. Even after learining about the attack on Pearl Harbor, his inactivity allowed the Japanese to destroy most of his airforce in the Phillipines on the ground. He knew that Pearl had been attacked and that he was likely to be next on the Japanese agenda but when into a bit of shock and didn't take the actions necessary to defend his command.

Kevin<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah! If this is what he meant, then I am sorry. I read it as he was responsible for Pearl Harbor and had prior knowledge of the attack

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman:

As for the Navy well... all they had was battle ships... what on earth do those junk heaps do?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be fair, here. Keep in mind that the first naval battle exclusively between opposing carrier forces did not occur until several months AFTER Pearl Harbor. Also, keep in mind the prevailing WORLD view (in fact, the standard naval dogma for nearly everyone but the Japanese) was that naval aviation was not nearly as important as carriers. It took the combination of Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway, and Leyte to disabuse people of that notion.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I'll vote for Hitler, that Tunis operation was painful, espcially when the Germans attacked at Kursk and were lacking infantry in almost every formation.

But you forgot Hitler's insistance on spreading all of his fast divisions all over France and the low countries so that none of them could support each other when an invasion did come.

[Ellros]

"As for the Navy well... all they had was battle ships... what on earth do those junk heaps do?"

-Well, they Navy also had 5 CV's in the Pacific at the time (Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Yorktown, and the venerable Langley), and an impressive submarine force. So saying ALL they had was BB's is sort of wrong.

As for what do they do? I see you haven't used 14" guns in a CM battle yet.

[JasonC]

The worst commander of WW II was Italian Field Marshall Rudolfo Graziani, commander of the 10th Army in North Africa from June 1940 until he resigned his command in February, 1941. He commanded an army of over 300,000 men, over 100 combat battalions including 10 battalions of tanks and 40 of artillery, he faced British General O'Connor in the Egyptian desert.

From early December 1940 to February, the British had available the 7th Armored division, the 4th Armored brigade, the 4th Indian division for only the initial stages, later withdrawn, and the 6th Australian division relieving it. The British forces numbered around 35,000 men. At the first point of attack, the Brits had 275 tanks to 120, while the manpower ratio was the same size in the other direction.

The Italians proceeded to lose essentially their entire force, inflicting only modest losses on a British force less than 1/8th their size. Graziani's passive positional defenses at coastal ports, in depth, allowed his positions to be destroyed in sequence.

First 80,000 Italians at Sidi Barrani fought the whole British force and lost, losing 40,000 prisoners after the British armor cut their line of retreat. The Italians then holed up in Bardia, and were surrounded again, and soon lost another 30,000 prisoners. Tobruk was next - a position that the Australians held against the Italians and Rommel for a year - and fell in 3 days, with another 30,000 prisoners.

The Italians then fell back along the coast road to Benghazi. But unable to secure adequate supplies for their masses in that limited port, they continued the retreat along the coast road toward El Aghelia, without a rear-guard holding the port. The Brits blocked their retreat with a single armor brigade, which was down to 3000 men and 29 operational medium tanks.

In the consequent fight, Beda Fomm, the Italians with 120 tanks - a number of them decent mediums - and tens of thousands of men, were defeated by the British, with 40 Italian tanks KOed on the field to only 3 British ones lost. The encircled Italians surrendered in crowds.

In less than three months, the entire Italian force in North Africa, the 10th Army - 300,000 men - had ceased to exist as a fighting force, while the odds had been 8 to 1 in their favor, and with the enemy doing the attacking. Graziani acknowledged his own incompetence as a field commander by resigning his command.

Nobody else even comes close.

[kburns24]

Zhukov has to be up there as one of the worst commanders. After the Stalin purges, this idiot is given the reins? Stalin wouldn't have had nearly the amount of losses had he not killed his best military minds early in the war.

#1 Hitler, of course. He meddled too much. If he left his military decisions up to the experts we would have had a cold war with the Nazis instead of the USSR.

#2 Stalin, nothing more be to be said about this one.

[Herr Oberst]

What, no mention thus far of that certain general who only won in Afrika because he waited until the numerical superiority tilted the battlefield such that my own grandmother could have led those forces to victory?

The one who blew every timetable prediction he made about advancing in the weeks following the Normandy invasion, then had the gall to note that the master strategy of landings and breakout was the toughest he ever commanded?

And who the hell devises a plan where your advance relies on a single elevated road? The planned axis of advance that every military man from Holland knew was insane. The route that Holland armed forces had wargamed in the past and discounted as ridiculous. The one that the government in exile told them wouldn't work. But would Monty listen? Noooooooooooo. "They're not professional soldiers, so I must know more than them."

Monty gets my vote, maybe not up there at the very top, but definitely in the running. An arrogant, pompous ass.

Yeah, Patton was arrogant and pompous ass too, but at least he knew it, and had good cause to be arrogant and pompous.

[Pzman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ellros:

As for what do they do? I see you haven't used 14" guns in a CM battle yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have but against air craft? what good are they?