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

#31

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 09 Aug 2004, 17:06

Shrek wrote: For example, Clark's 1944 decision to move directly towards Rome in order to liberate it, rather than in a more northern direction, which could have trapped a large part of Kesselring's forces. A prime example of not exploiting the tactical successes at Cassino and Anzio. Taking Rome was of course a victory, and it might even have been the correct thing to do if Italy had still been part of the Axis in 1944, but as it was, the advantage of piercing the German line in two places was not followed through.
Well – here you really caught my soft spot, because I haven't much left for Clark and his Rome adventure in 1944. In my opinion he was the most self-centred general wanting PR for himself, way ahead of MacArthur, Patton & Montgomery.

So what do I do? Sticking to my arguments saying that he wasn't a bad commander?
Shrek wrote: These are both examples of victorious commanders who, in my opinion, qualify as not very good commanders because they failed to exploit the opportunities offered by their tactical victories.
Luckily you have left me a little opening here, since I have no trouble with agreeing to this. Clark was not a very good commander, a mere average general (at best - if you don't tell anybody :wink: ). Still – I'm not sure whether it qualifies him to be the worst commander nor a very bad commander. Though he almost lost his head at Salerno; the crossing of Rapido doesn't give him much credit either and then Rome. Let's just say that I have an open mind when we are talking about Clark as a bad commander.
Klaus Yurk wrote:Slightly off-topic (yikes, my own topic) this is one of the reasons I always find it somewhat annoying when some Allied commanders are listed as among the best.
Should I point out that we have practically only talked about Allied generals when we have talked about bad generals. :wink:
Klaus Yurk wrote: They had so many advantages that victory should have been relatively easy. They normally outnumbered the Germans, they often knew their plans, had huge materiel logistics advantage (if the supplies were not where they were needed, somebody was haording, or it was a snafu of some sort...as opposed to the Germans where the supplies often simply did not exist), and had, especially in the West, TOTAL air superiority. We all know how important that has proven. I'm no military man, but even I SHOULD WIN given those advantages.
Well – a bit cheap I think. First of all it is a sign of good generalship to bring yourself in a position were you have all these advantages. Secondly it also requires a good general control all these elements. Besides I don't think that anyone would disagree with you that the Germans had many good and excellent generals. Although IMHO not among the best, but that is another thread.
Klaus Yurk wrote: It seems to me that to win, when you should win, is not a great feat. If the Allies had even one Mannstein or Guderian in charge....how fast would they have been in Berlin?
Would either of them have been able to plan and execute Overlord? I doubt it.
Klaus Yurk wrote: I'm still curious about the US Army general in early fighting the the Pacific (42 or 43) who was replaced by an admiral? Halsey, perhaps? It just seems to me that I heard that once, although it was probably on the History Channel and we know how reliable they are :wink: I might also have had one too many Heineken's at the time.:oops:
I simply can't think of anybody. Actually very few US army generals were relived of command in the Pacific. Maybe it was a USAAF general?

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
Last edited by Steen Ammentorp on 10 Aug 2004, 13:02, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cyberdaemon
Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 11 Mar 2004, 23:04
Location: estonia

#32

Post by cyberdaemon » 10 Aug 2004, 11:23

i vote for hitler - cus he never understood the reality.especially in barbarossa - the germany werent ready for fighting in the russia.


Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#33

Post by Andreas » 10 Aug 2004, 11:49

Steen - don't you think you are being a bit harsh on Lucas? After all, he was not really given much by way of clear orders from his superiors, and must have believed he followed his commander's intent when Clarke told him not to stick his neck out, on departure from the beachhead.

Goldfish
Member
Posts: 410
Joined: 31 May 2004, 14:51
Location: Atlanta, USA

#34

Post by Goldfish » 10 Aug 2004, 13:56

Here's an Axis general for you, Steen-Lt. General Renya Mutaguchi. You would think that the bleached bones on the trails to India would have given him a hint of what he was facing. Sure, he almost succeeded, but his battle plan was based on supplying his army with captured British supplies and made no provisions for either withdrawal or supply if this failed. His offensive cost the Japanese control of Burma and, by failing to support the divisions in North Burma, allowed the Allies to reopen a land supply line to China. He also cost the Japanese three heavily reinforced divisions that could have been better used elsewhere. Maybe not the worst Axis, or even Japanese, senior commander, but certainly a candidate.

Here's another note on Chiang Kai-Shek (Jiang Jieshi). A quote on handling his generals in Jonathon Fenby's Chiang Kai-Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost.
I have to lie awake at night, thinking what fool things they may do. Then I write and tell them not to do these things. But they are so dumb, they will do a lot of foolishness unless you anticipate them. This is the secret of handling them-you must imagine everything that they can do and warn them against it. That is why I have to write so many letters.
Chiang may not have been a field commander, but someone should have told him that. Well, someone besides Stilwell anyway.

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

#35

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 10 Aug 2004, 20:25

Andreas wrote:Steen - don't you think you are being a bit harsh on Lucas? After all, he was not really given much by way of clear orders from his superiors, and must have believed he followed his commander's intent when Clarke told him not to stick his neck out, on departure from the beachhead.
Well you may be right that I’m a bit harsh on Lucas. However I don’t judge him on the “stranded whale” of the Anzio landing alone. It is very true that he hadn’t been given very clear orders by Clark, and one could easily say (and I do) that initially Lucas made the right decision to consolidate the beachhead rather than rushing of towards Rome. I see him failing as a corps commander because of his subsequent actions, or lack of, within the beachhead were he eventually lost the confidence of all his divisional commanders.

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

#36

Post by RichTO90 » 10 Aug 2004, 21:34

Steen Ammentorp wrote:I see him failing as a corps commander because of his subsequent actions, or lack of, within the beachhead were he eventually lost the confidence of all his divisional commanders.

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
Which actions - or lack of actions are you referring to? And when did he lose the confidence of his division commanders?

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

#37

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 11 Aug 2004, 07:47

RichTO90 wrote: Which actions - or lack of actions are you referring to? And when did he lose the confidence of his division commanders?
I'll have to get back to you one this one. I'm away from home the next few days. I'll return with an answer Friday or Saturday.

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#38

Post by Polynikes » 11 Aug 2004, 18:26

cyberdaemon wrote:i vote for hitler - cus he never understood the reality.especially in barbarossa - the germany werent ready for fighting in the russia.
Yes but would he qualify for the world's greatest ever corporal?

User avatar
Jack Nisley
Member
Posts: 357
Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 03:37
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

#39

Post by Jack Nisley » 12 Aug 2004, 16:12

For RichTO90: Lucas didn't go up to the front lines to see first hand what was going on and to inspire his troops and commanders. The British commanders Penney and Templer were very unhappy and even Truscott, the very last general who would need to be inspired by his superior, was disappointed with Lucas. Recommend "Fatal Decision" by Carlo D'Este for good account of Anzio, Lucas, and Clark.

For Klaus Yurk: You're probably thinking of the Munda, New Georgia campaign and MG Hester, CG of 43rd Inf Div. Under Adm Halsey, he was assigned as the Task Force Commander for the New Georgia Occupation Force and as tactical commander of ground forces. The plan was to land away from the target of the Japanese airfield at Munda and attack through the jungle and Japanese fortifications to capture the airfield. This was never a good plan at any time in the Pacific war and 43rd Div rapidly became bogged down. MG Hester was unable to break the tactical deadlock and was overwhelmed by the many task force responsibilities (as was his overtasked division staff). Unhappy with slow progress, Adm Halsey sent the South Pacifc Army commander, Gen Harmon up to assess the situation. Harmon decided to bring MG Griswold, XIV Corps commander up to take over New Georgia Force and also replaced MG Hester with a new Div Commander. It eventually took most of 3 Divisions to capture Munda. Postwar, Adm Halsey commented on "still being able to smell the charred reputations over the New Georgia operation". Because of this experience, Halsey adopted the "island hopping" strategy for future operations.

Please note : Neither Halsey or McArthur developed "island hopping", it had been proposed by various commanders and staff officers since before the war. The Japanese had used it very effectively in the Phillipines and Netherlands East Indies Campaigns.

In 1944, MG Fuller, CG of 41st Inf Div, had a similar experience as MG Hester at Biak.

In 1944, there was also the "Smith vs Smith" controversy over relief of an Army General at Saipan by a Marine General.

I would not nominate Hester, Fuller, or Smith for "worst general.

Jack Nisley

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

#40

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 14 Aug 2004, 20:19

Well it seems that Jack beat me to it, and I can only concur with him, that Carlo D'Este's Fatal Decision is an excellent book on the subject.

It of cause difficult to say at what time Lucas's commanders lost fait in him are was rather a progress. (Except regarding Penney that didn't work well with Lucas from the start). What I meant by saying his lack of actions was that he seemed to lose is power of command and to make decisions. Which the following quote from D'Este should illustrate:
In the wine cellar VI Corps utilized as its command post in Nettuno the atmosphere was decidedly gloomy. At midday* Lucas assembled his commanders, and under considerable prodding from Truscott, Harmon, and Clark, who was visiting the beachhead that day, Lucas reluctantly agreed that his only recourse was to attack, lest his left flank eventually be cut to pieces by the German juggernaut. According to Truscott, Lucas was reluctant to commit his only reserve force but changed his mind when Clark backed Truscott and Harmon. C. D'Este: Fatal Decision : Anzio and the Battle for Rome. (1992) p. 245.
* February 17, 1944.

And again, same source p. 249:
When the Germans began threatening the Flyover during the night, Lucas began to have second thoughts about Harmon's attack. Harmon was awakened at 0200 hours by a telephone call from Lucas, who attempted to dissuade him from carrying out his counterattack the following morning*. Harmon refused and convinced Lucas that it was essential to carry out the original plan.
It is in this regard that I think he failed as a corps commander. He did not lead and as Jack mentioned nor was he seen leading his corps.

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#41

Post by Harri » 14 Aug 2004, 21:23

No Finnish Generals mentioned yet? Well, then I must mention Lt.Gen. Taavetti "Pappa" Laatikainen. He was probably also the luckiest Finnish General and "master survivor" because despite of his numerous mistakes he managed to survive the war and even received Mannerheim Cross. "Pappa" was know on his optimism and calm behaviour in every situations and he just used to say: "Its not that bad it looks." But despite of the fact he was liked by almost all - especially his soldiers - his sometimes strange behaviour while leading large troops could have turned to catastrophy without competent Colonels of his staff.

During Winter War "Pappa" led at first 1st Infantry Division and later I Army Corps. That was perhaps his best time. At the beginning of Continuation War "Pappa" was in charge of II Army Corps which partisipated in taking Karelian Isthmus. Already at the opening stage of war "Pappa" disappeared with his "friends" for days. No-one knew where he was. Later when Lt.Gen. Oesch got sick "Pappa" took temporarily the command of IV Army Corps. Needless to say but during that period brilliant Chief of Staff Colonel V. Nihtilä led all operations alone because "Pappa" was again "missing", at least he wasn't there where he should have been.

Later "Pappa's" II Army Corps was moved to Maaselkä Istmus in Soviet East karelia and was later re-named as Maaselkä Group. From that period I don't have much details on "Pappa" but in Spring 1944 he became Commander of IV Army Corps in Karelian Isthmus. Fortifications in that area were still under contruction or only half-made but it didn't bother "Pappa". He refused to believe in any messages that a great Soviet attack could happen there in the near future. He forbade even talking of such an attack. When the evident finally happened on 9.6.1944 majority of vehicles were in agricultural and constructing duties and troops didn't have their any means for towing guns and transporting supplies. Lots of guns were lost because of that (almost half of one division).

When the Commander of 10th Division (Maj.Gen. J. Sihvo) phoned to IV Army Corps on 10.6.1944 it was like a reprise from what had happened after Normandy landing: "Pappa" was taking a nab and his Chief of Staff didn't want to wake him up because he "would have been very angry" (like they knew). So "Pappa" continued sleeping and for a while Soviets broke through the Finnish lines!! Afterwards he probably managed well but his unwillingness to face the evident cost too many lives.

Like all have perhaps guessed "Pappa" had problems with alcohol which is always a bad parther when we talk about human lives. That's why "Pappa" Laatikainen is my candidate to the worst Finnish General.

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

#42

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 14 Aug 2004, 21:34

Harri,
I won't argue with you on this one. I simply don't know enough about the conduct of the Finnish generals. However I would have thought (from what I have read) that Kurt M. Wallenius would also be a candidate. While he did well in Lapland, it doesn't seem that he did very well when moved south. Could you elaborate a bit on him?

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
Last edited by Steen Ammentorp on 15 Aug 2004, 07:32, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#43

Post by Harri » 14 Aug 2004, 22:05

Well, actually K. M. Wallenius was one of my "candidates" too, but I think unlike "Pappa" Laatikainen he didn't get a new chance after his failure in the south (according to certain Finnish sources he was all the time full drunk or slept.) Wallenius had not been in active service since President Ståhlberg in the 1920's had dismissed him from the post of Chief of General Staff. Wallenius became then well known author in Finland. His books on Lapland are still worth reading.

As far as I know Wallenius didn't drink when he was in charge in Lapland. He started drinking after the plane which should have carried him to the south crashed after take off. Luckily he was not injured.

Mannerheim didn't like Wallenius, but for some reason he did like Laatikainen, although he was probably not his favourite generals (like E. Heinrichs, Hj. Siilasvuo, L. Oesch, V. Valve, W. Tuompo, A. Airo, P. Talvela, A. Pajari, E. Raappana, E. Vihma and A.-E. Martola).

User avatar
R-Bob The Great!
Member
Posts: 549
Joined: 24 Jan 2003, 07:13
Location: Canada

#44

Post by R-Bob The Great! » 15 Aug 2004, 04:32

Steen Ammentorp wrote:Regarding Eremenko – Well he wasn't involved at Kiev. You must be thinking of Kirponos, the commander of South-western front. I wouldn't include him because Kiev was mainly Stalin's fault. Kirponos several times suggested first a withdrawal later a breakout attempt, however Stalin forbad this. Unlike Busch I always seen Kirponos described as skilful, so no I wouldn't put him on the list of worst commanders.
Sorry I meant Budenny because I always seem to remember him being involved in the battle and was only given his command because he was an old cavalry friends of Stalin. I also agree Kirponos was the most skilled of the Front commanders in June 1941 (at least he was able to do the most damage to the Germans)

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

#45

Post by Delta Tank » 23 Aug 2004, 04:40

The US Army General relieved in the Pacific Theater was Major General Ralph Smith. There is an entire book on this controversail relief entitled: "Howlin Mad" vs. The Army, Conflict in Command:Saipan 1944. by Harry A Galley. The US Army and the Marine Corps divisions were different in oganization and had different doctrine in how to fight, this more than anything else was the cause for the relief. When you read the book there are three General Smiths involved. The Vth Amphibious Corps Commander Lt. Gen. Holland "Mad Dog" Smith, 2d Marine Division Commander, Major General Julian Smith, and the US Army 27th Infantry Division Commander, Major General Ralph Smith.

Mike

Later I will try to explain the actions of the Corps Commander at Anzio, but not now , must do a little research. It has been years since I read the story and I want to get it correct.

Post Reply

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