I would humbly suggest the whole French high command staff in 1940, Adolf Hitler -of course-, von Paulus, general Percival -a classic-, general Bergonzoli, Admiral Kimmel, General Short, marshal Budennij, and, finally, Stalin (for his "glorious" behaviour during Barbarrosa and for the Karkhov attack -1942-).
Best regards
The worst?
-
Steen Ammentorp
- Member
- Posts: 3269
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Having already discussed Gamelin and Percival, taking Hitler and Stalin aside. I would like to hear your comments/arguments for the rest.
While I may understand putting Budennii on the list I fail to see what either Short and Kimmel (beside being an Admiral
) did or failed to do that qualifies them for the list.
Instead of just producing a list of names adding some arguments makes it more interesting.
Btw. a small point but an often repeated mistake. It's Paulus without the von.
Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
[url=htpp://www.generals.dk]The Generals of World War II[/url]
While I may understand putting Budennii on the list I fail to see what either Short and Kimmel (beside being an Admiral
) did or failed to do that qualifies them for the list.Instead of just producing a list of names adding some arguments makes it more interesting.
Btw. a small point but an often repeated mistake. It's Paulus without the von.
Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
[url=htpp://www.generals.dk]The Generals of World War II[/url]
worst generals
Steen Ammentorp writes: "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."
I gots to pick a nit with that comment. Sir Douglas Haig was--eventually--successful......but look at the cost of his success. To me, somewhere along the line, the price paid for success can be such that success becomes failure, at least failure so far as military competence is concerned.
Mark Clark was "successful"......but the cost of his success--and his glory-seeking--was a huge number of casualties and much misery for soldiers and civilians alike because his grab of Rome allowed the Italian Campaign to continue.
I'm wouldn't classify him as the worst western Allied commander in Europe, but he's one of the worst.
To my mind, the "worst" Allied commander of WW II is a toss-up between three men.....General Percival, General Gamelin and Marshal Budenny.
I gots to pick a nit with that comment. Sir Douglas Haig was--eventually--successful......but look at the cost of his success. To me, somewhere along the line, the price paid for success can be such that success becomes failure, at least failure so far as military competence is concerned.
Mark Clark was "successful"......but the cost of his success--and his glory-seeking--was a huge number of casualties and much misery for soldiers and civilians alike because his grab of Rome allowed the Italian Campaign to continue.
I'm wouldn't classify him as the worst western Allied commander in Europe, but he's one of the worst.
To my mind, the "worst" Allied commander of WW II is a toss-up between three men.....General Percival, General Gamelin and Marshal Budenny.
-
Steen Ammentorp
- Member
- Posts: 3269
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Re: worst generals
I don't totally disagree with you on this one. What I said was that successful commanders cannot be considered to candidate as the worst commander. What I didn't say was that a successful is always a good commander. I should think that there is a distinction.Galahad wrote: I gots to pick a nit with that comment. Sir Douglas Haig was--eventually--successful......but look at the cost of his success. To me, somewhere along the line, the price paid for success can be such that success becomes failure, at least failure so far as military competence is concerned.
Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
Percival & Singapore. One cannot seperate the two, but though Percival had faults, does he deserve what's been laid at his door over the years?
Surely the outcome of the battle would have been no different if say Patton,Monty,Manstien etc etc were in charge. Singapore would have fallen.
Given the weakness of the RN in the far east, the geographical posistion wasn't that favourable with the chances of being outflanked very high due to the large coastline, lack of inter service co-operation was critical, some divisional commanders were lacking as were the troops, its not that surprising that Singapore fell. Percival made errors, which in hindsight may have delayed the fall-to what constructive end I dont know-but Britain couldn't and wouldn't send men & material in the numbers required.
Andy H
Surely the outcome of the battle would have been no different if say Patton,Monty,Manstien etc etc were in charge. Singapore would have fallen.
Given the weakness of the RN in the far east, the geographical posistion wasn't that favourable with the chances of being outflanked very high due to the large coastline, lack of inter service co-operation was critical, some divisional commanders were lacking as were the troops, its not that surprising that Singapore fell. Percival made errors, which in hindsight may have delayed the fall-to what constructive end I dont know-but Britain couldn't and wouldn't send men & material in the numbers required.
Andy H
-
Steen Ammentorp
- Member
- Posts: 3269
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Which of Clark's decisions were very decisive and which were very stupid?alephh wrote:US general Clark gets my vote - some very decisive and very stupid decisions :lol:
But Some russian generals came close.
Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
Well, that one is easy. Rydz-Smigly. Total lack of REAL plan of war, total incompetence in trying to implement the poor excuse of plan into life, totally bad choosing of people for commanders, trying to control directly the units and not giving them enough flexibility, giving very bad orders..
Another choices are:
gen. Kazimierz Fabrycy who abandoned his army and refused to return to it later, trying to justify himself because of "sickness".
gen. Stefan Dab-Biernacki, who after REALLY bad commanding during battle at Tomaszow Lubelski got civilians dresses and escaped abandoning his soldiers.
Both were later nominated for another responsible positions by Rydz-SMigly!!!
Others are Bortnowski who contributed greatly to disaster at Bzura, Rommel (with ' over o, it was Polish general) who refused to help Thomme and quite a few others...
Another choices are:
gen. Kazimierz Fabrycy who abandoned his army and refused to return to it later, trying to justify himself because of "sickness".
gen. Stefan Dab-Biernacki, who after REALLY bad commanding during battle at Tomaszow Lubelski got civilians dresses and escaped abandoning his soldiers.
Both were later nominated for another responsible positions by Rydz-SMigly!!!
Others are Bortnowski who contributed greatly to disaster at Bzura, Rommel (with ' over o, it was Polish general) who refused to help Thomme and quite a few others...
Well, let's take some location (almost any location would doSteen Ammentorp wrote:Which of Clark's decisions were very decisive and which were very stupid?
), say, Italy, Gustav line/anzio for example. American forces land peacefully behind german lines - not a single german soldier nearby. They can capture Rome. They can cut germans out of supply. They can encicle german defence line. They can pretty much stop the fight in southern/centre Italy and force Hitler to move more troops to northern Italy from other vital fronts.
But Clark orders his forces to fortify the beach 8) Uh oh.
One might assume that his "beach" is now secured and all
Well, there was only ONE direct road by which german motorized units could attack. So it might have been good idea to secure it. But one road was far too complex matter for Clark to comprehend - german assault by that road (when it after looooong waiting came) sliced his forces almost in two parts, and after that he started to have some vague idea of importance of that road.alephh, while the timid Allied behaviour after they had landed at Anzio could reasonably and ultimately be blamed on Clark, it is US general Lucas who must take the immediate blame for it. He also got sacked because of it.
BTW, the forces at Anzio were about 50/50 US/British.
However, I agree about the capture of Rome part - if Clark had taken a more easterly direction, he could have cut off Kesselring's forces withdrawing from the Gustav Line as well as liberating Rome - but as it was he chose to only do the latter by going more directly north and allowing Kesselring to escape.
BTW, the forces at Anzio were about 50/50 US/British.
However, I agree about the capture of Rome part - if Clark had taken a more easterly direction, he could have cut off Kesselring's forces withdrawing from the Gustav Line as well as liberating Rome - but as it was he chose to only do the latter by going more directly north and allowing Kesselring to escape.
-
Steen Ammentorp
- Member
- Posts: 3269
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
alephh - I hope you were realising that I was playing the devil's advocate and I wanted to see your arguments From what you gather from this thread I don't have much left for Clark.
Although Clark untimely was responsible for Anzio nuch of the blame must go to Lucas as Shrek pointed out.
Despite Clark's Rome adventure I will however stick to my point that he was not the worst commander.
Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
From what you gather from this thread I don't have much left for Clark.Although Clark untimely was responsible for Anzio nuch of the blame must go to Lucas as Shrek pointed out.
Despite Clark's Rome adventure I will however stick to my point that he was not the worst commander.
Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
Hmm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clark phrase the mission something like "First seize and secure beach, then bla bla bla..." and during first day in anzio he mentioned to Lucas something about "do not stick your neck out."Shrek wrote:alephh, while the timid Allied behaviour after they had landed at Anzio could reasonably and ultimately be blamed on Clark, it is US general Lucas who must take the immediate blame for it.
If somebody gets that sort of orders both officially and on friendly conversation then who it is to blame?
-
Steen Ammentorp
- Member
- Posts: 3269
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
He did - and I actually think he was right about that one. Had Lucas just pushed forward things could have gone really bad. The trouble was that Lucas (a bit harsh) practically continued to seize and secure all the time he was at the beachhead.alephh wrote:Hmm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clark phrase the mission something like "First seize and secure beach, then bla bla bla..." and during first day in anzio he mentioned to Lucas something about "do not stick your neck out."
Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
Bad how - they would have felt lonely without any german division around?Steen Ammentorp wrote:...and I actually think he was right about that one. Had Lucas just pushed forward things could have gone really bad.
Several german divisions engaged in Anzio came from france, yugoslavia etc. There was enough time to put out a nice ballet show on the beach and still make so much progress that german forces had to leave Gustav line. After handful of french infantry men pushed through difficult terrain and past Gustav line, german forces started to withdraw. What makes you think germans wouldn't have started to withdraw after several divisions behind their defence line?