The worst General of the war?

[SeaMonkey]

Colonel, you'll make a great lawyer.

[Comrade Trapp]

Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian:

Incase you hadn't noticed, I exagerate a lot to get my point across.

I bet you have to do that for a lot of your points.

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Ouch!

[xwormwood]

@Col.Gen.Guderian:

read and learn:

Hitler, Generals and stuff

"in December 19, 1941, Hitler, the German dictator and a former WWI corporal, appointed himself the new commander-in-chief of the German military, and personally commanded the daily war management since then. He no longer trusted his gifted generals, the dedicated highly professional leaders of the world's most effective military machine, to win the war for him. He thought he can succeed where they failed, and ignored most of their advices since. He totally forbid any more retreats, a limiting constraint that cost the german military almost a third of its manpower in Russia before the end of the winter. General Halder wrote "Hitler's constant underestimation of the enemy is becoming grotesque".

And please stop insulting honorable forum members like Liam or Comrade Trapp.

Thanks.

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

You honestly think I don't know all this? When exactly in the course of events did I defend Hitler? I just said that he wasn't a General, he never rose up the ranks and left the army straight after the great war. However, Hitler tends to get the brunt for every single German defeat when this wasn't so. Infact, the invasions of the Rhineland and Poland stand to his credit. With grand strategy he was clever, but when it came to grand tactics he was less sure. He ignored certain practicalities which meant he would never be a real General. His scope was good though. He wasn't as militarily inept as Stalin was. In 44/45 his military handling was disasterous certainly, but the war was already lost by then.

I think people are very foolish to asume that Hitler made all the mistakes. It was often the case that he was fed exagerated intelligence accounts about enemies destroyed which led him to believe he enemy was 'finished'. This is exactly what happened at Stalingrad and Paulus was to blame. Paulus was also to blame for not destroying the 62nd and 64th armies whilst they were out on the open steppe, just as he was to blame for not focusing all his efforts on the volga crossings which kept the Russian armies supplied and thus sapped the strength of the 6th army.

Guderian, Model and later Manstein all agreed with Hitler that Zitadelle would not work. He was only swayed by Kluge and Zietzler and indeed the rest of professional military opinion to carry it out.

Sorry to go on, but my point is that I think people can be incredibly short sighted about Hitler's military abilities. He wasn't even close to Napoleon as he liked to compare himself to, but he was no imbecile.

[xwormwood]

Sorry, but when Hitler "appointed himself the new commander-in-chief of the German military, and personally commanded the daily war management" he acted surely like a general, or not?

And when Liam writes that Hitler as a former WW1 corporal was the worst general in WW2, where is the point in crying out "no general / no general rank"?

Do YOU honestly think that Liam don't know all this?

[JerseyJohn]

Of course xwormwood is correct.

He appointed himself chief of the all the German military branches. Keitel, who he made a fieldmarshall, the equivalent of an American 5 star general, was little more than his chief clerk and secretary. Goering, who would have held the non-existant American rank of 6 star general, was also subordinant to him. He issued orders and millions of men marched and died as a result, I'd say that's a general -- the more so as he actually stood over maps and pointed specifically to what he wanted done.

The fact that he didn't have formal officer training is meaningless. The same can be said of several of Napoleon's Marshalls.

The only question is whether or not he was a good general.

Unless you want to count Mussolini as a general I'd have to say Hitler was the worst. He looked good early when he was doing little more than advancing the staff plans drawn up by von Manstein for Poland, the Low Countries and France. He actually did do a lot of work in the Danish and Norwegian campaigns, but again the real detailing was done by legitimate army and naval officers.

In Norway he did issue one specific directive that the destroyers remain offshore to give the landed troops a sense of confidence. The Royal Navy altered the concept by sinking those unfortunates with their own BBs and CAs. I doubt that was very good for morale.

It wasn't a brilliant decision, but brilliant compared to many of later ones.

Did anyone say he was an imbecile?

He had a great grasp for technical data. Many of his military decisions in organizing the German Armed forces prior to the war were excellent.

Had he understood his own limitations and left the actual command of troops to his professional generals and admirals he might well have waged a successful war. But he chose instead to become the personal commander. At times he rushed through entire fronts to work out detailed orders for battalions! Surely the local commander could have done that much more effectively.

The main factor was probably an incurable and degenerative nervous disorder. He was probably aware of this. Despite all the villainy attributed to him I feel more than a little pity for the man. He was a bonafide sociopath and should have been in a sanitorium, instead of turning all of Europe into one.

Unfortunately the USSR also had a sociopath running things and he also made some direct military decisions that were hideous though Staling didn't even have Hitler's dubious credentials. The only battles he'd ever fought were political ones, backstabbing and murders. But he was in charge and millions died by his direct orders. If either had kept completely clear of the actual general aspect of warfare the side involved would doubtlessly have fared much better.

In terms of actual field commanders who were inept, I think Budenny is a fine choice. He was an old cavialryman, personally brave but not really qualified for a major command. Vorosihov is also a fine choice, his orders invariably led to disaster and someone else being put against a wall and shot. The competition for last place is always fierce.

[ May 21, 2004, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Blashy]

Ok, I am not saying Hitler is too blame for ALL the errors.

In War, in the Victors make errors.

I'm just saying, eliminate Hitler and the conquered european countries would have been German, so would Russia.

That is until the Americans would have dropped the A Bomb in Germany.

Either way, the Allies were the sure winner simply because of the A-Bomb, not a nice way to win, but a win none the less.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian:

I say Marshall Budenny of the Soviet Union.

Zhukov considered Budenny to be very objective and reliable strangely enough.

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Zhukov considered Budenny to be very objective and reliable strangely enough.

Was that not more simply because he obeyed every order he was given? Zhukov was no genius himself though.

[Kuniworth]

Yes you are probably right.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian:

Zhukov was no genius himself though.

No but probably one of the most hard working and ambitious commander in the annals of warfare.

[jon_j_rambo]

My favorite Russian leader is in the movie,"Enemy At the Gates". "When the one with the rifle gets shot, the other picks it up." That's leadership!

[Kuniworth]

You would probably like Chuikov. There's a lot of stories told about him from soldiers in Stalingrad. A small group of soldiers that met Chuikov was halted and the general then pointed to a nearbye hill and said; "go there, die extensively"

[jon_j_rambo]

Chuikov, wasn't he in Star Trek IV?

[Kuniworth]

No you mean commander Kirk. He was american.

[blackbellamy]

Some awful ones IMHO:

Walter C. Short - of Pearl Harbor fame.

Friedrich Paulus - Stalingrad, orders from Hitler or not.

Timoshenko - pretty much lost every battle he was in along with a quarter million men.

Douglas MacArthur - cowardly sneaking away from his doomed troops with a suitcase full of cash. A real class act.

Monty - he wasn't truly afwul in his actual battles, but he was the master of the lost opportunity. His caution and fear of damage to his public image smacks of almost-cowardice.

Percival - the guy in charge of Singapore who pointed all his guns out to sea because the 'yellow men' obviously weren't skilled enough to attack by land.

[xwormwood]

Off Topic:

U.S. II Corps Commander Major General Lloyd Fredendall

Short Question:

What happened to him after Kasserine?

[Aztecace]

Originally posted by blackbellamy:

Some awful ones IMHO:

Douglas MacArthur - cowardly sneaking away from his doomed troops with a suitcase full of cash. A real class act.

I am going to have to disagree with you on that one. General MacArthur was no way near a terrible general. In fact he accompished alot of great things as a general and administrator. I am not saying that he didn't make mistakes but who didn't. Cases in point.

1. You cannot blame him for losing the Philipines. He had been asking for more support in the Philipines since he took over there. But the government didn't give him anything. As for leaving before the fall. He was ordered by President Roosevelt to leave. Other wise, he would have rotted in a Japanese prison camp for the rest of the war.

2. He indeed did return to the Philipines!

3. His leadership as the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers in Japan rebuilt that country into a powerful democratic nation.

4. MacArthur reversed the dire military situation in the early months of the Korean war with a brilliant amphibious assualt behind the North Korean lines at the Port of Inchon. Though he did miscalucate badly when he ordered U.N. forces to approach the Chinese border which triggered the entry of Chinese forces into the conflict.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

Off Topic:

U.S. II Corps Commander Major General Lloyd Fredendall

Short Question:

What happened to him after Kasserine?

Found this at the generals website;

Fredendall

Lloyd Ralston, Lieutenant-General

(1883-1963)

1936 - 1938Commanding Officer 57th Regiment, Philippines

1938 - 1939Executive Officer to Chief of Infantry

1940 - 1941Commanding General 4th Division

1941 - 1943Commanding General II Corps

1942 Commanding General Central Task Force, North Africa

1943 Commanding General XI Corps

1943 Deputy Commanding General 2nd Army

1943 - 1946Commanding General 2nd Army

1943 - 1946General Officer Commander in Chief Central Defence Command

1946 Retired

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by blackbellamy:

Some awful ones IMHO:

Walter C. Short - of Pearl Harbor fame.

(JJ)-- A fine Lt. General who didn't understand the capabilities of aircraft carriers, at the time few people did and very few of those were army officers. He asked if the Japanese had any bombers that could reach his bases in Hawaii and was told they didn't. Nobody advised him there was even a remote possibility that the place could be attacked by carrier aircraft; most career Navy men thought the idea to be ludicrous till it actually happened.

So, Short went about doing what he understood best, ground defense and security. He set the airfields up to have maximum safety from sabateurs. This meant putting the aircraft in groups where they could be more easily protected by soldiers manning perimeters. Given the information he had this was the proper course of action. He tood a fall for his decision but it wasn't justified; if he'd had been advised there was a chance of being attacked from the air he'd have done things differently. --

Friedrich Paulus - Stalingrad, orders from Hitler or not.

-- (JJ)An excellent staff officer who, before taking command of the Sixth Army suggested an excellent course for North Africa, that Rommel not move into Egypt after taking Tobruck and that the capture of Malta be made the immediate priority before subsequent land actions. Hitler thought it a sensible course and Rommel talked him out of it.

Stalingrad was his first and last field command. It was a poor personnel choice. Paulus was being placed in the wrong position; it was not the place for on the job training of an army commander. Germany had an abundance of available field commanders who'd have been better suited to the task, appointing the wrong man at the wrong time is more a statement against Hitler than against von Paulus. --

Timoshenko - pretty much lost every battle he was in along with a quarter million men.

--(JJ) No argument but in Stalinist Rusia things are sometimes not so clear; still, he probably was a pretty awful commander. --

Douglas MacArthur - cowardly sneaking away from his doomed troops with a suitcase full of cash. A real class act.

-- (JJ)This is answered in fine fashion elsewhere in the thread by Aztecace.--

Monty - he wasn't truly afwul in his actual battles, but he was the master of the lost opportunity. His caution and fear of damage to his public image smacks of almost-cowardice.

-- (JJ) No, more his fear of casualties. By late 1942 Britain was already drained of able bodied men fit for frontline combat. By 1944 they were beginning to shelve units to consolodate their manpower. The most accurate remark concerning Monty is, "He needed a sledge hammer to crack a walnut." True enough, but no one ever accused him of cowardice. Actually, this is the first time I've ever seen that remark. --

Percival - the guy in charge of Singapore who pointed all his guns out to sea because the 'yellow men' obviously weren't skilled enough to attack by land.

-- (JJ) The guns were already set seaward, Percival had nothing to do with it! The Japanese defeated him in Malaya and nobody, NOBODY, could have defended Singapore from a land attack. I don't understand the knock against him. The defeat at Singapore was a group effort with Churchill responsible for many of the mistakes. Afterwards he said, "It no more occurred to me that a fortress would have no defense against land attack that that a battleship would be built without a bottom!"--

[ June 05, 2004, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Tank Ace]

Even though he is not a general, Hitler. Wat a moron, didn't smash the british at dunkirk, didn't bomb britains airfields constantly, didn't allow the german army to pull out of stalingrad, didn't allow rommel to pull back at el alamein and re arm, didn't let panzers attack normandy beachead of normandy, and destroyed the once mighty german war machine by giving suicide orders, wat an idiot.

[Liam]

Well, it was Goering who said to his Fuhrer back up the panzers let me use the Luftwaffe to kill BEF and French at Dunkirk

North Africa was short of supply, Hitler never recognized this, how much of it was his fault, dunno. Easily the Germans could've taken out Egypt with what Rommel wanted cut off a Vital Artery for the Brits

However! Hitler forcing the 6th Army to stay and die was foolish. His constant need to save Mousillini's Screwups like a big baby boy that needed his big brother to fight all his battles for him. Finally the execution of an able Commander Rommel in France. I'd of left him there regardless, and any Good Leader would have, he was not loyal to Hitler but he was to Germany and he would have been attentive when the Invasion came...

Hitler was completely braindead. In France... He let us Buildup the way we did and for that you can see for his meddling to be one of the worst Leaders, strategically of WW2. You have to also remeber he DOWed the Most Economically Powerful Nation in the World in 1941 right after Barbarossa to aid nails to his coffin... The list is pretty much endless and you can't say he's truly a General but he liked pretend to be one sometimes

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Originally posted by blackbellamy:

Some awful ones IMHO:

Timoshenko - pretty much lost every battle he was in along with a quarter million men.

--(JJ) No argument but in Stalinist Rusia things are sometimes not so clear; still, he probably was a pretty awful commander. --

i]

Timoshenko had both ups and downs but in no way being awful and losing every battle. His acheivements is pretty clear, he was succesful in Finland, reformed the red army in very short time, he also did well at Smolensk, Yelnya and at Rostov. I gave him a rating 5 in THE COMPLETE SOVIET COMMAND LIST in the sc2 forum.

[Blashy]

It's fun to read the history of WW2 and if you pay close attention, everytime there is a major setback by the Axis, it as a Hitler idea.

He's the dumbest and his Generals were even more dumb listening to him while knowing his ideas were futile.

Nothing can beat that.