Worst Military Commander of WWII?

[Richard Morgan]

Tinpot wankers...

With the greatest respect, this particular tinpot wanker does actually have military service behind him and is well aware that CMBO is just a game - albeit a very good one.

I fully agree that there is a world of difference between waging "war" from in front of a computer monitor, dry fed and rested with tea and biscuits to hand and actually being out there, cold wet miserable shagged out and pissed off, with real lives hanging from your decisions.

There are however, valuable lessons to be learned from study and debate on historical events. To coin a phrase - if you do not study the mistakes of the past, you are destined to repeat them. With regard to simulations, I find that I can learn much more about a battle or campaign by using appropriate games software in conjunction with literature on the subject. Having to make an appreciation and take decisions for myself gives me an insight that I would not get from a book alone. It also helps to talk to people who were there - only these are in increasingly short supply!

By the way, if you find computer wargames so crappy and puerile, and dismiss afeciendos who wish to participate in intelligent debate as "tinpot wankers" - then, with the greatest respect - what are you doing logging onto this site in the first place? :confused:

[Wolfshook]

I'd have to say Stalin, considering the fact that he liquidated his officers. Also, can't you pretty much say that he murdered each and every Soviet soldier that died needlessly, in his "Mongol Horde" war?

Hitler was pretty stupid, but Stalin was even worse. I mean, at least the German soldier was given a gun, even if it was a Mauser 98k. Some Russians had to pick guns up off of dead bodies.

[PiggDogg]

Stalin, after his initial funk for the first few weeks after Barbarossa started, may not be a great commander, but he was certainly heads above Hitler. Stalin, despite having purged his army and nation before WW2, still had enough sense to, in the main, let his good generals (Zhukov and others) fight the war. But be aware, Stalin was by no means good. He was just less bad than Hitler.

Now with Hitler, after the German victories in France and the Balkans, hardly ever made a correct decision. Where do we start with the mistakes: Barbarossa itself, 1941 lack of winter clothing, prohibiting the 6th Army from breaking out of Stalingrad, Kursk, etc. (My hands are tired from typing. Lol.)

These Hitler mistakes were terminal. Stalin's mistakes were not terminal. Stalin was definitely less bad than Hitler. (By the way, I dislike both of these vermin.)

Cheers, Richard Cuccia

[Patton_71]

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

Ozawa. Weak and indecisive. Had multiple opportunities to decimate US carrier and naval forces in the Solomons in 1942 and failed miserably, thus allowing the pacific campaign to wrap up much faster than it would have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

:confused: :confused: Really? Ozawa was not in command in the solomons...His first major command was during the Phillippine Sea where he had nothing but boys for fighter pilots, and faulty intelligence about the effect the Guam/Tinian based Japanese air was doing. Considering he escaped the most powerful navy on the planet while only losing 2 carriers is commendable. He fought the battle intelligently, and he was also the only Japanese commander to successfully accomplish his objective in Leyte Gulf.

hands down..the worst military commander in WWII was Stalin... If Ol' Adolph gets lumped into this, then Joe has to be the worst. Millions of dead and captured in the opening stages of the war , and the red purge in the 30's castrated the Red Army's leadership. With a proper officer corps, and an army not living in fear of the CinC, Barbarossa could have been stopped by the time it reached Kiev. Instead the bloodiest campaign of man's history was played out by two maniacs.

In any case, enjoying the thread, and will read on !!!

Patton

[Valdor]

<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>

Although I don't agree with his selection, YECoyote makes a few valid (if possibly poorly stated) historical points.

1, 2 & 3) I think the point he was trying to make is that MacArthur's aircraft were destroyed on the ground--mostly parked wing tip to wing tip--several hours after the Pearl Harbor attack. Warplans clearly called for him to launch bombing attacks against specific targets immediately after the Japanese commenced hostilities. At the very least, he should have had his fighters flying CAP over his airfields and other facilities.

(After reading several more posts I realize several other people pointed this out. Sorry for the redundancy.)

4) The Army had complete and sole responsability for the local defense of Hawaii.

Most of the histories of the Pacific campaign in WWII discuss both these cases. I would particularly recommend 'The Two-Ocean War' by Samuel Elliot Morison who is pretty much considered the authority on U.S. Navy actions during the war. (He also wrote the 15 volume 'History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II.)

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Valdor ]