Worst Military Commander of WWII?

[Freak]

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

> This led to Zhukov's jailing.

I have to repeat myself:

QTE

Stalin actually sent him to command a relatively unimportant military district.

UNQTE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, from the History Channel, I may have saw it differently, or read into it differently. History Channel is not always accurate to the T. Honestly I cannot remember so you may be right. Stalin did charge Zhukov with a crime though. I may be wrong about the jail time. Still its funny that Stalin had Zhukov ride to save Stalin from embaressment only to sack him for it.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Call me revisionist, but the primary responsibility for the attack on Pearl Harbor is Japan's. It was their idea, their plan, their airplanes. They planned an audacious raid that no one believed they had the technology or courage to pull off, and executed it with great skill. They intended it as a surprise and it was. I wish we could deal with lost battles without inventing whole new mythologies to justify them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm impressed Mark IV. Such reasoned and intelligently argued statements on the subject of Pearl Harbour is rarely seen these days... especially from a Yank whose perspective is normally obscured by nationalism, but obviously not in your case.

Regards

Jim R.

[Skipper]

> Stalin did charge Zhukov with a crime though.

"Charge" and "crime" are both from the glossary of criminal justice.

Iirc, Zhukov was reprimanded with something like "losing his party member's humility". Which was a serious accusation at the time, but still far from criminal charge.

If it wasn't Zhukov, he would quite likely end up in a labour colony or worse. As it was, he was simply exiled.

[HRM JeffRoi]

Further notes on Kimmel and Pearl Harbor:

Based on what I've read I believe that Kimmel was scapegoated. There were several problems with U.S. preparedness, most notably that the base had a very predictable routine for comings and goings.

While it is true that Billy Mitchell predicted the attack years earlier (or at least described it as a plausible threat), I believe that it is important to remember that at the time, there was little tangible evidence that carrier-based aviation could be as devastating as it proved to be at Pearl Harbor, and the possibilities were not apparent to all.

While the paranoia about sabotage that resulted in the land-based aircraft largely being sitting ducks at the time seems moronic now, many at the time believed that carrier-based aviation didn't pose much of a threat. Even the Japanese under Yamamoto, an advocate of carrier airpower, didn't anticipate the kind of success they achieved at Pearl Harbor.

So I believe that this misunderstanding of the technology has to be taken into acccount when trying to compare Kimmell and the rest of the Pearl Harbor guys to someone like GRaziani, who had little to mitigate his ineptitude.

THE FOLLOWING RANT IS A BIT OFF-TOPIC:

It is worth noting that through the first half of 1941 (approximately, I'd have to look it up to be sure) ship movements were reported in the local paper, making it extremely easy for spies to track ship movements and dispositions. BTW to my knowledge there is not a single documented case of a Japanese-American either spying for Japan or conducting sabotage, yet *ALL* the Japanese-Americans on the west coast were moved to 'internment' camps. Concentration camps. Many of the JA draftees, for example those serving in the 442nd, were fighting for the United States while their families were in concentration camps. A bit off-topic but this is something that I believe needs to be more widely known.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HRM JeffRoi:

BTW to my knowledge there is not a single documented case of a Japanese-American either spying for Japan or conducting sabotage, yet *ALL* the Japanese-Americans on the west coast were moved to 'internment' camps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I obviously agree with much of the rest of your post, some Japanese were definitely spying. Reports from the Japanese consulate regarding ship movements could hardly be considered spying, as that is what consulates do.

However, the FBI taps of a Mrs. Mori's personal phone calls to Japan leave little doubt that there was, indeed, some regular old spying going on. There was also a German inhabitant, Bernard Kuehn, in the pay of the Japanese, with an elaborate signalling method of lights and signals for reporting fleet movements to Japanese subs.

There were probably others. After all, the British had spies there as well (Harry Dawson, the British vice-consul in Hawaii, was Secret Service).

[Freak]

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

> Stalin did charge Zhukov with a crime though.

"Charge" and "crime" are both from the glossary of criminal justice.

Iirc, Zhukov was reprimanded with something like "losing his party member's humility". Which was a serious accusation at the time, but still far from criminal charge.

If it wasn't Zhukov, he would quite likely end up in a labour colony or worse. As it was, he was simply exiled.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regardless of the of the fact, I find it horribly funny that he sacked him for doing what he was told.

[Chek]

Zhukov used the only resource available and saved mother Russia.If anything he's one of the greats.

[HRM JeffRoi]

I may be mistaken but wasn't Mrs. Mori Japanese (as opposed to Japanese-American)? Definitely like to know.

[HRM JeffRoi]

Addendum, again off-topic:

An interesting article on Yoshikawa, certainly the best known and most productive Pearl Harbor spy. http://www.thehistorynet.com/WorldWarII/articles/1997/05973_text.htm

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HRM JeffRoi:

An interesting article on Yoshikawa <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the ref.

[Richard Morgan]

I refer to Herr Oberst's comments on Montgomery as a possibility for worst military commander in WW2

1) Claude Auchinleck certainly deserves much of the credit for Monty's win in Africa. However, an assault through minefields and a defense in depth can never be considered a pushover: (who is Herr Oberst's granny anyway: Attila the Hen?)

2) With regard to Normandy, NO-ONE ever walked over the Germans. As Max Hastings states in his book "Overlord" they were the most skilfully professional army of modern times - or words to that effect. It is therefore hardly suprising that the Normandy campaign did not run to schedule. It is also worth stating that just about every German unit of quality in Normandy including most of their armour was stacked up against the British and the Canadians - NOT the Americans.

3) I will not defend Monty - or anyone else against their refusal to heed Dutch advice when planning Market Garden. However, this was due to Monty being very much a product of his time. Arrogant Xenophobia was (and continues to be)one of Great Britain's very worst faults. However, one must take into account that this is a fault in which America is fully our equal: I think it is safe to say that you inherited it directly from us in the first place!!! I cannot envisage any American Commander of the time taking any more notice of the "Goddam Dutch" than we did of "Johnny Foreigner." One final point about Market Garden - even with its flawed inception and all the cock-ups, it came within a single whisker of total success: more favourable weather - radios that worked - moving earlier: any of these could have tipped the balance. I personally think that the potential gains made it worth the attempt and one has to remember that the planners did not have the benefit of hindsight.

4)In summary, I would contend that Monty was actually a very competent soldier. Flawed certainly, over-rated possibly, pain in the arse definitely!! How Ike ever coped with him as a subordinate is more than I can fathom. Incidently, I listened to a heated debate on Monty recently whilst at my branch of The Royal British Legion. I can actually inform you that there are WW2 British veterans who think that he should have been strung up! I kept my head well below the parapet - at the age of 42 I wasn't going to argue the toss with people who were actually there!!

"If drunk with sight of power, we loose

Wild tongues that have not thee in awe:

Such boastings as the Gentiles use,

Or lesser breeds without the law.

Lord God of hosts be with us yet,

Lest we forget, lest we forget."

Richard.

[Firefly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

3) I will not defend Monty - or anyone else against their refusal to heed Dutch advice when planning Market Garden. However, this was due to Monty being very much a product of his time. Arrogant Xenophobia was (and continues to be)one of Great Britain's very worst faults. However, one must take into account that this is a fault in which America is fully our equal: I think it is safe to say that you inherited it directly from us in the first place!!! I cannot envisage any American Commander of the time taking any more notice of the "Goddam Dutch" than we did of "Johnny Foreigner." One final point about Market Garden - even with its flawed inception and all the cock-ups, it came within a single whisker of total success: more favourable weather - radios that worked - moving earlier: any of these could have tipped the balance. I personally think that the potential gains made it worth the attempt and one has to remember that the planners did not have the benefit of hindsight.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually there were very good reasons for not believing the reports of the Dutch resistance at the time, they had been thouroughly infiltrated by the Abwehr and were being used to feed misinformation to the Allies, a fact of which Allied intelligence were fully aware.

As for Monty being the worst general of the war, it's such a ludicrous statement that I doubt the originator of the claim was serious. Monty had plenty of faults, but was he worse than the Italian generals in their invasion of Greece, or General Perceval who surrendered Singapore to the Japanese without a fight, or Mark Clark throwing away his troops lives to further his political ambitions?

[Mark IV]

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

General Perceval who surrendered Singapore to the Japanese without a fight...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be fair, there certainly was a fight. The battle for Singapore was technically lost before the Japanese reached the city, but the assault on Singapore Island began on the 8th, and the surrender didn't come until the 15th. There was extremely heavy fighting during and after the Japanese crossings. The bulk of the troops in Singapore were at their end, however, many having fought all the way down the Malaya peninsula. III Indian Corps had been effectively destroyed in the retreat, having been consistently used as the rearguard for the other forces. Much of the paper strength of the garrison were raw recruits (both Indian and Australian) who had not even had weapons training. The Japanese had total air supremacy.

As the Japanese tightened the perimeter around the city, effective resistance was no longer possible and Percival had little choice but surrender at that point. Troops in the city were looting, rioting, and attempting to flee in small boats at gunpoint (some made it).

Percival certainly didn't defend the peninsula well and must still take most of the blame for the disaster (like German commanders in Russia, he blamed much of it on the "enervating climate" as though the attackers were somehow not subject to the same conditions). Deployment and use of troops were disastrous from beginning to end. Most of the Allied highlights were due to Australians and Indians, but their efforts were squandered by command decisions; the Japanese were well-prepared, well-led, and extremely aggressive. They often defeated numerically superior commonwealth forces in the campaign.

Percival was definitely the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[PJungnitsch]

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

As for Monty being the worst general of the war, it's such a ludicrous statement that I doubt the originator of the claim was serious. Monty had plenty of faults, but was he worse than the Italian generals in their invasion of Greece?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly not the worst, but probably one of the most overrated.

[PiggDogg]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Originally posted by Firefly: As for Monty being the worst general of the war, it's such a ludicrous statement that I doubt the originator of the claim was serious. Monty had plenty of faults, but was he worse than the Italian generals in their invasion of Greece?

Originally posted by machineman: Certainly not the worst, but probably one of the most overrated.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with both of you. Monty certainly should never be counted amonst the worst commanders. Indeed, he was overrated and certainly may not make the best commander list. However, he was pretty damn good and was certainly one of the best British commanders.

Richard Cuccia

[Firefly]

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

Certainly not the worst, but probably one of the most overrated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, particularly by himself. However the pendulum has swung so far the other way in some quarters that he's in danger of becoming the most underrated.

[Lost Admiral]

How about Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of China? Did he do anything right? Ended up throwing away over 3 million Chinese lives and lost pretty much every operation the Chinese launched. He spent more energy worrying about the Chinese Communists than fighting the Japanese. He even managed to cripple joint U.S. operations in Burma and India. Admittedly, the Chinese theatre was a side-show to European and Pacific theatres, but I can't think of anywhere else that wasted so many lives for so little gain.

[HRM JeffRoi]

$0.02 on Monty:

I agree that Monty is NOT one of the worst. I am very much of the camp that he wasn't one of the best, and that relieving Auchinleck was a big mistake.

The second battle of el-Alamein was not a pushover, but it is worth noting that Monty built up until he had *twice* the force that Auchinleck requested to press the attack.

It's been a while since I read this stuff but I remember a lot of British historians being pro-Monty and Americans being anti-Monty, which echoed each nation's military philosophy and sentiment during the war.

As far as the Dutch intelligence and infiltration goes, I agree there was reason to discount intelligence of German troop strength, but I don't buy that ignoring reports of the road not being suitable for passing a tank corps was justifiable in the slightest.

The "damn Dutch" are still bewildered that any fool would have tried to bring armor up that road on such a tight schedule, and *any* Dutch in England right up to Queen Beatrice herself would have no doubt advised Monty thus.

I strongly disagree that the potential payoff for Market-Garden made it worth it--had it succeeded, the price in lives was still too high in my book--not only that, but the lives of elite paratrooper units. Colossal waste. I believe that MOnty's primary motive in Market-Garden was potential personal glory, and he callously threw human lives at that goal on the chance that *if* it succeeded--his reputation would be guaranteed. If he failed, which arguably should have seemed even at the time the most likely outcome--the tremendous risk of men and materiel would hamper the war effort.

I have to admit that while I've looked at the maps and stats and strategic assessments and stuff, my disgust over Market-Garden is more a result to talking to children and grandchildren of British soldiers who were there than any objective assessment. The anti-Monty sentiment was very intense among British veterans of Market-Garden, surprisingly the anti-Monty sentiment was more stronger and more consistent than anti-Westmoreland sentiment among American Vietnam vets. (This needs to be qualified, however--I a) didn't talk to any of the British vets directly, and talked directly to a large number of American Vietnam vets).

All in all, I agree that Monty doesn't belong on the worst list, but the idea of his being on the best, or underrated list, makes me want to vomit.

BTW I still feel it's tough to top Graziani as the biggest moron. I stand by him, even with such outstanding nominees as Goering and the Fuehrer himself.

Thanks to whoever started this thread, this sort of bickering is always fun. I believe that there is very little in history that wouldn't benefit from being bickered over--assumptions need to constantly be tested and reevaluated.

[Commissar]

Wow, I am surprised no one has said anything about Vorshilov. When it comes to worst military leaders, I'd figure he'd be somwhere up there on the list. Any guy who can say that large armored formations are not important or are unnecessary even after watching the Germans conquere all of Europe has some serious judgment problems. He certainly shares a good chunk of blame for the disasters in '41.

[Viceroy]

Lost Admiral,

a good nomination. In Taiwan he's known as Jiang Jie Shi and every town/City has a street named after him! Though he's held in less regard now, (you don't see his picture in every classroom anymore and he's been taken of most the money) few realize quite how crap he was.

His war against the Communists rather than the Japanese helped Mao Ze Dong to rise to the top and turned many Chinese against him.

Things he did right? Getting his wife to help drum up support in the US. The attack on Shanghai in '38, though it cost him most of his best divisions did attract the attention of the West. Perhaps that was the reason Rooservelt kept on supporting him.

A short list! Things he did wrong could fill many pages. He should rank as one of the most incompetent leaders of WWII.

[Firefly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HRM JeffRoi:

$0.02 on Monty:

I agree that Monty is NOT one of the worst. I am very much of the camp that he wasn't one of the best, and that relieving Auchinleck was a big mistake.

The second battle of el-Alamein was not a pushover, but it is worth noting that Monty built up until he had *twice* the force that Auchinleck requested to press the attack.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Auchinleck had to go, after the Gazala battles and the loss of Tobruk; his troops had lost all confidence in him and were severely demoralised. Whatever Monty did later he restored the morale of his troops and insisting on a 2 - 1 advantage in an attack is hardly a crime, I believe Zhukov would often insist on a 4 - 1 advantage before attacking. If Auchinleck had pressed the attack on his terms he would probably have lost and the Germans would have taken Egypt and the Suez canal.

I agree with you about Market Garden, although plenty of other people made cock-ups in that operation. Urqhart for instance chose the drop zone for the British paras, Horrocks has been blamed for not pressing hard enough with XXX Corps and so forth.

My comment about Montgomery being in danger of becoming underated was a reference to some of the people in this thread who think he is the worst general of the war, i.e worse than your own nomination of Graziano or mine of Perceval and the Italian general in Greece, (whose name escapes me began with a B I think), which is totally ridiculous. Monty wasn't the great general that he and some of his supporters claim, but he was one of the better Allied generals who on the whole understood the strengths and weaknesses of his troops. The best of the British generals I would argue was Bill Slim in Burma, but that's another topic.

[REVS]

Halt! Stop! Desist! No more! You presume, you little no-account suburban privates from nowhere, to judge real military commanders who, after years of service, have risen through the ranks to command a force of men and machines. This is the all-time crappiest thread ever. All CM players are kids safe in their cots at night, and they ought to f*** off from presuming to judge real military commanders' worth for ever more. As far as I am concerned, this is a wonderful GAME system. It's a GAME. The real people you little tinpot wankers are judging were involved in a real life and death struggle. Real, living human beings died, and these people did their best to try to make sure their side won, while more of the other side died. I'm amazed the BTS Software people don't close down crappy threads like this. How about a minute's silence in honour of the real living human beings who died, doing their best, no matter how good or bad it was? Worst Commander of WWII? Anyone in the year 2001 who thinks they know the answer to this question. Minute's silence all round, please...

[Andreas]

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

General Perceval who surrendered Singapore to the Japanese without a fight<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, while this maybe lost on you, the city was chock full with civilians. Percival should be commended for giving up as quickly as he did, thereby at least saving more of the inhabitants from being killed in the air raids and attacks. Any suggestions as to what he should have done?

Why don't you nominate von Choltitz for giving up Paris or von Kesselring for giving up Rome without a fight while you are at it?

Apart from that I agree with what the previous poster said.

[Mark IV]

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

The real people you little tinpot wankers are judging were involved in a real life and death struggle. Real, living human beings died, and these people did their best to try to make sure their side won, while more of the other side died... How about a minute's silence in honour of the real living human beings who died, doing their best, no matter how good or bad it was? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least one valid point there, though I suspect almost everyone on the CM forum has spent more than a full minute contemplating the awful suffering and sacrifice of WWII.

But with high rank comes high risks, and one of those is the judgment of history, even by suburban wankers. I object to even discussing Montgomery in any context of war's worst, because it is so obviously not the case. He arouses strong emotions, and some people cannot seem to dislike someone's traits while seeing their obvious merits, particularly under the conditions. So that part of your rant is well-placed.

The fact is that many high-level appointments were political, or the result of internal politics, and real shooting wars strip the stars off one's shoulder until they are re-earned the hard way. Some commanders tried, and some just tried not to be to blame. Many of the great defeats were the result of an entire military system that was unprepared or broken down, faulty doctrine, or geo-political misfortune, that no commander could have prevented.

The worst sort of generals did a greater disservice to the fighting man than any 50-year post mortem, and we are supposed to learn from this. All other things being equal there is a certain level of performance, competence, and energy expected of a high-level commander, and some failed to deliver it. Awareness of each commander's circumstances would certainly make for a more meaningful discussion.

It's an OK discussion, as long as the BSometers are running.

[REVS]

Good points all round Mark IV, I just object to the quality of debate sometimes.