The worst?

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
Post Reply
User avatar
Klaus Yurk
Member
Posts: 1373
Joined: 15 May 2004, 04:15
Location: Lincoln, Ne.

The worst?

#1

Post by Klaus Yurk » 02 Aug 2004, 01:02

I'd like your nominations for the worst Allied and Axis generals, admirals, or commanders of WWII. We always hear the best mentioned, but who, in your opinion, is the worst?

For the Axis, I'd vote Himmler, with a dishonorable mention to Goring who personally screwed up the Luftwaffe as much as he could. But Himmler wins the gold star in my book.

For the Allies, I'd vote the Brit general in command of Singapore. Don't remember his name. Surrendering to a far inferior force takes real courage :lol: . He runs away with the title in my opinion.

(If this has already been discussed, please forgive me.)

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#2

Post by Andy H » 02 Aug 2004, 01:08

The British general's name was Percival

Andy H


Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#3

Post by Jon G. » 02 Aug 2004, 04:25

It was a nasty surprise to Percival and most other commentators that the jungles of Malaya weren't impenetrable. By the time the Japanese had made it to the straits to Singapore, he had little choice but to surrender, for the Japanese had seized the city's water reservoirs. All the same, his performance was not impressive.

I agree that Himmler was not a good commander of Army Group Wistula.

Admiral Lütjens aboard the Bismarck may not have been a bad admiral - but he certainly had little faith in his mission's possible success.

MacArthur's defense of the Filippines could have been better prepared. Bataan notwithstanding, he let the Japanese air force wipe out his B 17s, parked wingtip to wingtip also after Pearl Harbor.

US general Lucas didn't do very well at Anzio. His bridgehead was supposed to relieve Cassino, instead his command became a liability to it.

US general Clark could have trapped large parts of Kesselring's forces after the Gustav Line had been breached, but he preferred to pass down into history as the liberator of Rome instead - but then the Allies lost many opportunities in Italy from 1943 on, right from the choice of landing spots, the pace of the initial advance and the negotiation of the armistice.

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#4

Post by WalterS » 02 Aug 2004, 05:25

Hands down- Adolf Hitler. He had no strategic grasp of the undertaking he was embarking upon, especially when he attacked Russia. Most of his tactical meddlings were a disaster. He did not understand the significance of strategic air power til the Allies smashed him over the head with it. He failed to totally mobilize Germany's economy until it was too late. He diverted significant precious recources to pursuing his "Final Solution." In short, he was a disaster as a commander and as a Head of State and led his people right into the abyss.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#5

Post by Jon G. » 02 Aug 2004, 05:53

As a political and strategic gambler, Hitler did remarkably well for a remarkably long time. Blaming every German failure on him while giving him no credit for Germany's successes is really just re-hashing the old German generals' post-war argument that they could have won the war had it not been for Hitler's constant amateur meddling.

User avatar
Grünherz
Member
Posts: 1152
Joined: 07 May 2003, 10:13
Location: California

the worst

#6

Post by Grünherz » 02 Aug 2004, 07:49

Shrek wrote:As a political and strategic gambler, Hitler did remarkably well for a remarkably long time. Blaming every German failure on him while giving him no credit for Germany's successes is really just re-hashing the old German generals' post-war argument that they could have won the war had it not been for Hitler's constant amateur meddling.
I think that there is a great deal of truth to this.
Worst? Himmler would be up on the list. Where do Italian generals rank?
Tom

Enkpitt
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 06 Jun 2004, 13:02
Location: USA

#7

Post by Enkpitt » 02 Aug 2004, 08:53

We should come up with a new word on how much the italians suck. I think the word 'bad' is good for the italians.

benjamin1066
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 02 Aug 2004, 06:00
Location: Virginia, United States of America

#8

Post by benjamin1066 » 02 Aug 2004, 18:32

I'd have to say it was Hitler--he obviously had no understanding of history when he attacked Russia and started a two-front war. Either that, or he was too arrogant to care.

If he had kept the war on one front and invaded Britain he would have been in a much better position to attack Russia later on, after the British were knocked out of the war.

Also, there is no doubt in my mind that if he had coordinated his strategy with the Japanese against Russia, with Japan invading from the East and Germany from the West, the Germans and Japanese would have crushed Russia and met on the steppes of Russia by the end of 1943.

The lack of coordination between the axis powers was a major reason for their defeat. By contrast, the allies had a common strategy from the begginning.

User avatar
Klaus Yurk
Member
Posts: 1373
Joined: 15 May 2004, 04:15
Location: Lincoln, Ne.

#9

Post by Klaus Yurk » 03 Aug 2004, 09:48

It is hard to argue with Hitler as the worst leader of a country. But then...there is Mussolini! :lol:

But I was actually thinking more in the lines of field commanders.

Shrek,

I must disagree on Big Mac. My favorite American General. I think he had so little to work with, I've got to give the egoist a break there. I wouldn't put him anywhere on a list of even worst American commanders. Clark, yes. MacArthur, no.

I certainly don't see him on a list with guys like Himmler and Percival (thanks, Andy.)

Klaus

Docent P
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 13 Jan 2003, 11:16
Location: Canada

#10

Post by Docent P » 03 Aug 2004, 12:04

From the Soviet side I can suggest: the 1st place - Zhukov was outstanding, the 2nd place is to be divided between Timoshenko and Voroshilov.

Zhukov also deserves a special prize for the dullest memoirs.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#11

Post by Andy H » 03 Aug 2004, 15:15

From the Soviet side I can suggest: the 1st place - Zhukov was outstanding, the 2nd place is to be divided between Timoshenko and Voroshilov
Just to confirm these are your worst commanders in order?

Andy H

User avatar
Klaus Yurk
Member
Posts: 1373
Joined: 15 May 2004, 04:15
Location: Lincoln, Ne.

#12

Post by Klaus Yurk » 03 Aug 2004, 17:40

Docent,

I too think you midunderstood the thread. It is about the WORST. The most incompetant, the most foolish.

I would never class Zhukov in that group. Somehow, I don't think you meant to either.

Klaus

Enkpitt
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 06 Jun 2004, 13:02
Location: USA

#13

Post by Enkpitt » 03 Aug 2004, 17:43

Why was Himmler such a bad commander?

User avatar
Steen Ammentorp
Member
Posts: 3269
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#14

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 03 Aug 2004, 18:50

Well,

Just as I find it difficult to discuss the "best general" it is also difficult to discuss the "worst general" since it is completely impossible to establish objective criteria on which to perform a comparison. How do you compare say Percival's defeat at Singapore in 1941-1942 with that of Busch's at Army Group Center in 1944?

Nevertheless it is often intriguing to do so but IMHO it cannot be more than a very subjective opinion, so here is my few cents.

Despite this we need some kind of measurement to judge from, and let us concentrate on commanders in the field (leaving out staff officers and political wannabe generals like Himmler and Hitler) in order to keep it simple, but how do we define "the worst"?

Well properly by defining "the best" and letting "the worst" be the opposite. IMHO Lord Wavell have done it best defining the good commander in his Generals and Generalship, where he saw the first essential of a good commander to be:
the quality of robustness, the ability to stand the shocks of war
(I don't have my own copy at hand at the moment, so I'm quoting D.M. Horner's (1978) The Crisis of Command, p. xviii)

During a battle (including preparing for battle) this can be tested by looking at how he correspond to the pressure made upon him by not only the enemy through their actions but also by public opinion, political leaders, superior officers and subordinates. So with this rather loose definition let's take at the name suggested.

Firstly I will leave out Hitler, Mussolini & Hitler [ed. last Hitler should be Himmler] and stick with purely professional soldiers.

Secondly successful commanders (no matter how they achieved their success) can IMHO come in consideration as "worst", which leaves out Clark, MacArthur or Zhukov. Whether ever can be said of these they were successful. That said I should point out that I'm far from a fan of Clark or MacArthur, and I wouldn't count on any of them when considering "the best" (Nor Zhukov for that matter).

Thirdly on the Italians I would strongly refrain from the above kind of stereotyping. The Italians had their share of bad generals as well as good generals (who often did not have the means to prove it).

Well - this leaves us with a rather short list: Voroshilov, Timoshenko & Percival. Of these, I feel, only Percival can aspire for the title. I don't think that there can be much doubt that Percival failed considerably when looking on the above criteria. He did not have the robustness, the ability to stand the shock of war. Yet I don't think that he is the right candidate for the worst general, for that he took up the post of General Officer Commanding Malaya too late (May 1941) to redeem the failings of British politics during the 1930'ties and far too much was beyond his control. One could question whether any other general could have done much better than prolonged the inevitable (Like the Americans at the Philippines). I suggest reading C. Kinvig: Scapegoat : General Percival of Singapore for a more balanced view on him.

So who was the worst commander of WWII? While the loss of Singapore may have shocked the British and Australians there were plenty of other shocks at time of equal magnitude affecting other nations.

I was thinking of a disaster that shock the whole world. Namely that of the defeat of the French army in May-June 1940, where we find IMHO the worst commander of WWII: Maurice Gamelin. Having finally reached my candidate I'll keep my arguments short.

Here we have a commander that had been preparing for this battle since he became chief of the French general staff in 1931 or at least since he became c-in-c designated in 1935. He completely failed to prepare the French army for war. Admittedly he could not have foreseen exactly what was coming, but he did nothing or very little due to pressure from the public opinion and the French politicians. This may be but what makes this error even graver is that he didn't react after war had begun. He accepted a status quo despite of what had been seen in Poland.

And finally when the attack came in May 1940 he showed that he had none of the above-mentioned qualities. He completely lost his power of command unable to make any decisions, yielding to pressure from not only German actions but also to that of the public opinion, politicians and subordinates. Whatever failings Percival had, he cannot be said to have lost the power of command in same degree as Gamelin, making him a far worse commander than Percival. Therefore my candidate as the worst commander. Btw. M.S. Alexander's: The Republic in Danger : Maurice Gamelin and the Politics of French Defence 1933-1944, is a very good read.

However as I said in the beginning it is my subjective opinion and you could easily argue for other candidates.

Btw. I mention Busch in the beginning and he too is a very strong candidate promoted way above his ceiling but Hitler's meddling make it difficult to really judge him.

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
Last edited by Steen Ammentorp on 03 Aug 2004, 22:50, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Klaus Yurk
Member
Posts: 1373
Joined: 15 May 2004, 04:15
Location: Lincoln, Ne.

#15

Post by Klaus Yurk » 03 Aug 2004, 21:10

Nice analysis. I bow to your supeior knowledge on this subject.

And your website is superb! I have bookmarked it for further study.

Perhaps you can answer a question about another possible candidate for this list of not so good generals. In action in the Pacific, who was the US Army general that was replaced by an Admiral?

Thanks.

Klaus

Post Reply

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”