BulletRat Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 We often hear of the best generals of the second world war, the Bradleys, the Pattons, the Mongomerys, the Rommels, etc etc - but what about the real stinkers? Obviously early in the war there were some pretty ordinary generals in charge before these guys came to the fore - people like... like... well I don't know coz I've never heard of them! So who WERE the bad generals of WWII? I'm talkin the real stinkers - someone who would make my piss-poor efforts at commanding look good! Educate me, please! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shosties Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Hmmm... WORST in all-caps... I'm no big fan of Mark Clark. His moaning about Anvil ticks me off considering his rush to Rome (foregoing the encirclement of a juicy lot of Germans for political self-glorification) and first Monte Cassino. But all-caps WORST would be overdoing it. Any number of generals in the Red Army could be pointed to in 1940-1942, but this is beating something of a dead horse from a safe distance without appreciating what they had to work with. What was any guy going to do with Red Army in the state it was in and with Stalin and Beria looking over his shoulder? It took Zhukov, the fall mud, German overextension, winter, and the Siberians to rescue the situation. Surely some likely candidates could be found in the fascist Italian army. Who was supposedly "on the ground" in Greece? Hitler, as generalissimo and micromanager of the war. Now you're talking. Himmler as an army group commander (AG Vistula in early 1945 IIRC). Doesn't get much worse than that. Goering as commander of an air force and air production ministry (*shouting into phone* "Galland, your pilots are all cowards!" *to aide* "Where's my makeup and heroin?... oh, bring me a list of the paintings we've "aquirred" in the past week"). [ May 09, 2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
................................... Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I wish I could remember his name but the Italian general at the battle of Ghirba ought to be mentioned. When his large motorised column was threatened by some British armoured cars he gave the order for everyone to stop, dismount and form square in the middle of an open plain. Oddly enough a square of infantry against armoured cars turned out to be a rather bad idea... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shosties Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Hey, it worked for Wellington's "scum of the earth" against Napoleon's cavalry, didn't it? Might have been a little too fond of reading histories instead of those new-fangled field manuals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Mmm..."Keller was yeller", so the saying went... I think you'd be hard pressed to find real bad ones above divisional level, but lots of bad division commanders. Trouble is, divisional histories are kind of obscure and everyone has their favourites that few others really know much about. An exception would be Himmler, as head of Army Group Vistula, who was mentioned in another thread, but I don't think he really counts as he had little military training and wasn't a general. I mentioned in the same threat Otto-Ernst Remer, the dude who rounded up bomb plot conspirators in Berlin in July 1944 and was made a general by way of thanks. Solid battalion commander, apparently a bit of a dunce as a general, though I haven't read much about his post bomb-plot career. I think so much of what a general did is so esoteric it is hard for laypersons like myself to fully appeciate a good one from a bad one unless they are totally out to lunch, like Himmler. Certainly they did more than hand out medals and look at maps, but I think a lot of their job was simply facilitating the work of their staff, and was more personality and leadership than "soldiering". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker: I wish I could remember his name but the Italian general at the battle of Ghirba ought to be mentioned. When his large motorised column was threatened by some British armoured cars he gave the order for everyone to stop, dismount and form square in the middle of an open plain. Oddly enough a square of infantry against armoured cars turned out to be a rather bad idea... Brings to mind Sam Hughes, the Minister of Militia in Canada in 1914. During his service in the Boer War, he nominated himself for not one, but two Victoria Crosses (he never got them). In 1914, he scrapped the Canadian mobilization plan, and insisted that Canada's regiments not mobilize as units. Instead, he created a homogenous force of numbered battalions. Instead of mobilizing, say, the 103rd Regiment (Calgary Rifles) and 106th Regiment (Winnipeg Light Infantry), he instead sent drafts of men from those regiments to form the Tenth Battalion. Not a terrible idea, but a little kooky. At Valcartier, on an inspection tour, he bellowed out to an officer to have his men form square. The men shuffled into a square, even though the drill movement had been removed from the manuals in the previous century. "What now?" whispered an NCO to his sergeant. One of the ancient soldiers in the square whispered back "Unload." This was accomplished, and Hughes wandered off satisfied. It was Hughes who ramrodded the Ross Rifle into Canadian service, and the CEF went overseas with this weapon which was fine for snipers, but jammed on British ammo, was heavier than the Lee Enfield, jammed in even the least dirty conditions, and when improperly assembled the bolt fired back into the shooter's face, maiming or killing him. He also insisted a relative of his take command of a brigade in France, despite not being at all qualified for the job. He was a real pistol. Not a WW II example, but the "form square" story reminded me of him, and he would certainly have been a nightmare had he actually been allowed to command. But like I say, usually - usually - his type are sorted out long before they reach that level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arax3 Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 My Dad was in Italy during the time of Gen Clark's command. He was an incompetent *** et. al. etc ad nauseum. Dad got a couple of shots of brandy from his "stash" and he could rave about Clark for quite a while. Subsequent research, seems to me, to confirm the accuracy of his opinion. What abour Gen Freudendal (?} who was the loser at the battle of Kasserine Pass in N. Africa? A3 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Perceval in Malaya & Singapore didn't do that well... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Very difficult question actually. There are those who made drastic and eyecatching mistakes, but who weren't necessarily solidly incompetent, like Student and Dietl. Others were excellent at one level of command but proved quite unsuitable for higher commands, like Rommel and Model. Some were considered excellent by their superiors, but were considered madmen or simply incompetent by their men, like Zeitzler and Schörner. Others quite the other way around, like von Sponeck and von der Heydte. Some appear to have retained their cool in any kind of emergency, like Kesselring and Reichenau. Others lost their judgement very early in a crisis, like von Paulus and Harmel. The Nazi's opened the career for all kinds, and got all kinds. Fiddling lunatics like Eicke, ridiculous dilettants like Himmler, outstanding talent like Bittrich. Like Michael I believe the organisation of a functional larger military unit will allow for an extreme range of generals, and still work. And so there must have been hundreds of generals quite unsuitable for their tasks, but hidden behind Ia's and staffs. Lots of generals were removed for "incompetence" in the German armed forces, more than 300 filed cases actually. But this is not saying the men concerned actually were incompetent, as the need for scapegoats is reflected in the fact that less than 100 were removed before december 1942 - in any normal army it would be the beginning of the war that revealed the inevitable hump of the peacetimely malpromoted, professionally challenged higher ranks. It is also not saying all incompetent generals were removed from commands. Well, interesting to ponder. What is the definition of a bad general? What are his characteristics? Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 General Short, Army commander in Hawaii at the time of Pearl Harbor. Afterward, he claimed to have been scapegoated, but an examination of his record in that post shows him to have been lax and incompetent, at least for that particular position. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I think my vote has to go to Maj.-Gen. Fredendall. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Field Marshal Eccles, of course! He was the son of Mr & Mrs Eccles. They wanted to give their son an important-sounding name, so they christened him Field Marshal. It took the British army a couple of years to figure out that he was incompetent. He was replaced by Major Denis Bloodnuck, OBE and Bar. I heard a British historian of the North African desert campaigns, one S. Milligan, relate the tale one evening on the radio to H Secombe, the noted Welsh journalist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harmes Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Of course! Milligan has to be THE definitive historian concerning N.Africa and Italy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Wasn't Milligan the guy responsible for Mussolini's downfall? Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harmes Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 No. Milligan brought about the downfall of Hitler, and Mussolini brought about the downfall of Milligan and Gunner Secombe brought about the downfall of every body else. Brave lads... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: I think my vote has to go to Maj.-Gen. Fredendall. Fredendall definitely stank and was a corps level commander at a time when the US Army had just that one corps in the field. He made a dogs breakfast of his command in just about every possible way. Lots of US divisional commanders were promptly relieved of their commands in France when their green divisions failed to perform up to snuff in the first weeks of combat. Most of these outfits eventually came around quite well, so it's hard to know if the divisional commanders deserve blame or whether they were just scapegoats for the greenness of their troops or the tough tactical situations, like bocage fighting, they initially faced--anyway no one remembers their names. Maybe Jones--the 106th commander at the battle of the Bulge--deserves mention. He messed up, like Fredendall, in just about every possible way, the suffered a heart attack. Most of the corps level commander and above did a solid job. Arguably Clark was the worst army level commander on the US team--his gaffe is taking Rome rather than cutting off the retreating German army is crime enough in my book. Dandelion's list of bad German commanders is intriguing. I'd like to hear more about some of those claims. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaws Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Paulus, Friedrich (1890-1957) No matter from which points of view I tried to understand this man.... if you let 220.000 man die just to hide yourself behind the befehl of the Furher.. you deserve the title of the worst general (Generalfeldmarschall) of the history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 The U.S. generals who ordered the sustained attacks in the Hurtgenwald area? 120'000 U.S. soldiers engaged, 24'000 lost (killed, MIA, POW, wounded) another 9'000 lost to sickness ... The Americans conquered 50 square miles of real estate of no real tactical value to future operations. see Hurtgen Home Page [ May 10, 2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: winkelried ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Hideki Tojo. Bigger megalomaniac than Hitler ever dreamed of being, without even the shadow of the means to bring about the scale of conquest he envisioned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I have heard rumours according to which Marshal Voroshilov isn't a tactician and strategist of the same comparative calibre as his namesake tank. I also heard rumours that Generalissimus Stalin wouldn't be to strategy what his namesake tank is to AFV's. The sources and propagators of such blasphemous rumours were summarily shot, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Originally posted by Dandelion: The Nazi's opened the career for all kinds, and got all kinds. Fiddling lunatics like Eicke, ridiculous dilettants like Himmler, outstanding talent like Bittrich. Bittrich got off to a bit of a ropy start though. "Soeben ist Kommandeur 9.SS-Panzerdivision mit Herzanfall zusammengeknallt." (XXXXVIII.Panzerkorps, Telephongespräche April 1944, 14.4., 06.55 Uhr) Turned out to be a mere shock. That was Balck's Meldung to 4. Panzerarmee when Bittrich collapsed on the phone after having the riot act read to him by Balck. Get yourself Fricke's 'Fester Platz Tarnopol', for a good (if depressing) read. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick15 Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Joe Stilwell and various members of his staff Not incompetent and as Chief of staff to Chiang Kai-shek a commander with more than his fair share of problems. He makes my list as one of the poorer Generals as he was very dangerous to serve under especially if a Chindit - particularly in 77 Brigade between 6 June and 27 June 1944. In capturing Mogaung, while under Stilwell's orders, they were reduced from 2000 to 800 and virtually accused by Stilwell of 'malingering'. Stilwell's refusal to evacuate the survivors immediately after these battles cost 77 Brigade another couple of hundred casualties as exhausted men succumbed to typhus, cerebral malaria and septicaemia - 77 Brigade had been in almost continual fighting - much of it in strongholds behind Japanese lines - since 5 March 1944. On 24 June and 27 June 77 Brigade put in attacks that were to be supported by Stilwell's Chinese troops, who conspicuously failed to move. Despite this 77 Brigade did capture Mogaung. Stilwell's HQ announced to world radio the very next day that Chinese-American forces had captured Mogaung. Calvert (commander of 77 Brigade) signalled Stilwell "Understand Chinese have taken Moguang. Please record we have taken umbrage" Stilwell's son - his staff IO - did report umbrage must be a very small village as he couldn't find it on the map. As a one off the above example might be excusable but was part of a consistent pattern - Stilwell did not treat the Marauders (Merrill's) much better either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Axe_ Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Dimitri G. Pavlov (Commander of Western Military District and subsequent Front). He was in a theatre in Minsk June 21 when the first reports started coming in. "It can't be. It's just nonsense," he said. Although hamstrung by orders from above not to "provoke" the Germans even after it was obvious a full-out assault was underway (relayed from Stalin by Timoshenko) Pavlov's desicions over the next several days showed a man hopelessly out of touch with what was happening to the men under his command. Here's a summary of the first few days. Neither Erickson, Glantz, Salisbury nor Werth are particularly kind to him with phrases like "total loss of control," "panicked" and "totally and terribly" out of his depth peppering their descriptions of him in the first week of Barbarossa. It was to be his last week as well. He was relieved and executed before the month was out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Originally posted by Lord Harmes: Of course! Milligan has to be THE definitive historian concerning N.Africa and Italy! Gunner Who ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harmes Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Originally posted by gibsonm: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lord Harmes: Of course! Milligan has to be THE definitive historian concerning N.Africa and Italy! Gunner Who ? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.