"Worst Axis general of the war?" Topic

Keitel?

Rodolfo Graziani

Probably a much better pick than mine. Keitel takes a lot of heat for being a dyed in the wool nazi, but he was not that bad a general.

Kietel at least acted like he was a real General. I cant think of a single thing Graziani did right. Or when he acted like he was in charge, after the bullets started crossing paths.

Another vote for Graziani.

Me.
when I played FOW I had the worst record in our group.

Bastico, or as rommel called him "bombastico"!

Himmler-commanded Army Group Center which disintegrated in face of massive Soviet offensive.

Thaken's caught "Raul Alberto Disorder." Sad, really. :)

Another vote for Graziani.

Yep. Old Electric Whiskers Graziani.

Hitler?

I would second Himmler. Did everything to carve himself a command out and when the hit the fan he said he was sick and had "had to take a leave". and at the same time he had soldiers shot for cowardice that had only realised they were fighting for a lost (and extremely vile) cause.

Cheers,

Burkhard

On a tactical or operational level one has many to choose from. On a strategic level, I would simply say: The Germans.

As in WWI they never understood that good tactics and good operations don't automatically result in good strategy.

They could carry out brilliant operations (France), but as soon as they took on a strategic challenge (USSR) all they could come up with was to try and conduct a series of loosely connected operations that they hoped would result in victory.

They failed at logistics, long term planning (connecting national ends, ways and means), utilizing all the elements of national power.

Winning battles may get you medals, estates from the hand of the Leader and books written after the war, in which you blame all your failures on your benefactor, but it doesn't bring victory.

Fatty Goering takes some beating.
(Actually I've read he liked a good beating…..)

Actually, "Electric Whiskers" was the nickname of Gen. Annibale Bergonzoli.

'Yep. Old Electric Whiskers Graziani.'

Would that be the same 'Electric Whiskers' Graziani who was clean shaven?

You wouldn't be confusing him with the red bearded Generale Annibale 'Barba Elletrica' Bergonzoli would you?

It all depends on your definition of General. Graziani held the rank of Maresciallo and had done since Ethiopia 1935. If you mean it in the 'leader of men' sense then that's different.

I agree with aercdr, the German system of command was pretty poor, but Goering was the worst by far!

The dicke mann was more a political leader than a general in WW2… and as fighter pilot in his eyeday… let's say I would have not been happy to meet him on the sky…

Graziani and Himmler (he could have spared himself from this list!), with honourable mention for Feucthinger and Rommel…

Bastico was not bad, his main fault was constantly trying to explain the teutonic idiot that the more he was moving east the less fuel there was, or that he had to make a choice between fuel, ammo or troops beacuse the harbour faicilities in Libya were what they were.

also sometime, especially when the Teutonic Idiot was winning, Bastico and his logistical abilities were higly praised…

Yes I am harsh on Rommel, but in North Africa he wa the one to fire… (also beacuse he was not fit for command, if the doctors had let him recuperate after his break down instead of simply saying "resting in warm climate will be helpful" probably he would have been much better.)

Who was the guy in Stalingrad? He get's a pass from most historians, but could have done more if he had the to fight der fool.

That would be Paulus (often mistakenly referred to as "Von Paulus").

Rommel was a genius, and did what he could with what he had. Claiming him as the worst general of the war, or even as a runner up, either shows bias or lack of knowledge.

Paulus? Not so great maybe, but given his position and his orders, who could have done better?

Inquisitor,

I am no biased and I am a military historian, but Rommel was no genius. He created a mess. He was not ordered to go to the offensive, he was ordered to do an holding action. If you do not understand the purpose of your mission you are not a genius, you are a bummer.
He had tactical brillance, but he managed to lose Crusader when he was winning it due to poor appreciatin of the situaiton (he was out of contact with reality some would say), He mismanaged the aftermath of his greatest triumph with a stupid run to the nile (now at best he would have been able to get at alexandria, then how he would have crossed the nile? and the Suez Canal?).

also he had no appreciation for logistic, strategy or sound operational planning. He was at his best leading a regiment or a division… but other than that he was out of his realm.

If he was so great why at alam el alfa the 90th Leichte mutinied and refused to obey orders?

Sorry to have ruined your myth, but honestly there his nothing except biased and politically charged myth to support the idea he was a genius.

Paulus was a staff officer, average, nothing more nothing less. And he had no alternative. Fall blau was dead when Hitler decided to go for two divergent objective witohut sufficent strenght.

@ Arrigo,

I disagree. He was very agressive, and liked to lead from the front, much to the dismay of his staff. He managed a lot with limited resources.
He made several mistakes, like anybody else. Nominating him for worst Axis general is too much. There are many others more deserving of the title.

My point is:

Rommel was very good commanding the 7th Panzer in France (even if in a couple of instances he overplayed his hand). but as a corps and army commander in north africa he was a overall failure.

He was extremely good at improvising, outstanding in leading from the front, but that was ot was it was required from him. Operationally "operazione Venezia" (Gazala) is a msterpiece. He accepted a calculated risk was able to turn a fortified line and repel counterattacks from a superior force. He had some problems due to his command style (with him in the cauldron Cruwell brigade was almost witohut orders and doing nothing because he was not accepting orders from italians…). But the operation was well planned, well supported and for once he waited to have everything in place before charging.

Yet it was also something unusual for him, protracted concentrated battle (and he was helped both by Ritchie and by the fact that for once the Italo german forces were full strenght, operating near supply depots and with a lot of artillery).

If after tobruk he woulod have consolidated, waited for operation C3 and rebuilt tobruk harbour… then settling for a reasonable course of action he would have been a great general. Instead he launched something based more on fantasy than reality (again the best case scenario would have seen him in alexandria, then? Crossing two major river obstacle, supplied from tripoli, alex would have been demolished by the 8th army).

In the end he was never able to grasp his mission. He was not supposed to drive to Bagdad and then caucasus… he was to wage an economy of force holding action. He failed on that. He had to keep the british and the allies occupied in north africa he has sufficient means to do that and tie down superior enemy forces at key choke points. If he had paused after Gazala, allowed C3 probably Monty would have had a very bad time to force him outside the border (with a fully funcitoning tobruk he would have been much closer to his supply lines and getting better air support) and then Arnim could have done the same in Tunisia.

El alamein cost him the bulk of the infantry. Operating closer to supply bases would have probably saved them. I know that htis is monday quartbacking. But that was exactly what Kesserling wanted him to do after Gazala, it was exactly what Keitel and Jodl tought about the whole campaign, instead he appealed to Mussolini and Hitler to overrule the professionals…

There a lot of reasons for it, but they are realted to Erwin Rommel not to military logic.

Kesserling, Bastico, Bladassare and even DAK officers told him that his drive to alexandria was foolish. He never listened. No he was no good general.

LOL LOL LOL

Hitler was the worst. The Corporal who would be a General and believed he was better than all of his other generals.

His blunders are numerous and well known so I will not write 13 paragraphs to prove my point. If you disagree, it's ok. It's a discussion not a debate with a winner. Thank you.

Like the 'Monty was crap' thread elsewhere, Rommle may have had his faults, but he certainly wasn't the worst Axis General.

It is perhaps a bit unfair to just specify Axis as people are bound to pick on the Italians or Japanese rather than the mighty ubermensch. Hmm, any Bulgarian or Rumanian Generals anyone?

Paulus did a reasonable job, he could have tried to break out but chose not to. Either way his Army was dead.

Himmler barely held a field command, so he doesn't really qualify and conventionally air force commanders aren;t really considered as 'Generals' unless the command ground forces, so Goering is out.

The German Army in WW2 didn't seem to suffer quite so much from the rank insubordination and sabotage of orders which their fathers and grandfathers liked to indulge in. If forced to pick just one, it would be Keitel, a miserable excuse for a human being.

I can't really think of examples of German division, corps or army commanders displaying gross incompetence, although Theodore Eicke was a repugnant Nazi thug.

Arrigo "I am no biased and I am a military historian…"

So? I've known a few historians to engage in polemics. Ever hear of Chris Hitchens?

I tend to envision myself as a moderate and not too polemical (go figure).

My problem with Rommel is that really we have two Erwin the oustanding division commander in france and in the desert and the poor corps and army commander.

His insistence on countarattacking at the beach in normandy was suicidal, especially ignoring the two previous attempts at Gela and Salerno and the aborted one at Anzio.

After several year of reading my take on Rommel was that he never recovered after the breakdown at the end of France 1940. That made him unfit for further campaigns. Even in Afrika he was prone to collapse. A good general knew his limits. He had to ask for relief in 1940 and got treated.

Also his plans were too often too ambitious and unrealistic, the larger the force his commanded the worse he became. His first push from el Agheila with practically half of the ariete and half of the 5th Leichte was great, then when he had to settle for a formal siege of tobruk he faltered.

Also, ften his operational orders included support that failed to materialize beacuse his poor planning ability. He was not able to step back from leading to commanding, that was bad.

So while he was no peer of Himmler or Feuchtinger, and was certainly a talented professional he, in the end, was a bad korps and armee general. Like Goering do not belong to the list beacuse he was no general, Rommel, IMHO, belong here, beacuse he was a poor general.

Arrigo

I think maybe his contempt for his allies may have coloured the views of some.

another vote for Hitler

Hitler was a corporal! and a good one… or a chanchellor and reich president, a bad one…

not a general!

for Rommel…

It is not the contempt, but is herratical behaviour. One day the italian were scum and incapable, the day later son of mars… this from his personal correspondance, but the same applied almost to everyone and everything, down period everything is dark and bad, up period everything is effective and success is close.

I thought hitler was a General disater…:)

Can I pick a field marshal instead of a General?
Was Hideki Tojo a General or a Prime minister? or even a chief of staff?
Hitler was not a General but Generally managed to maneuver his Generals and staff into unnecessary situations thats Why he seems to crop up alot here.
Okay so the chain of blame and command goes up from a general's mistakes but if mistakes are made from the top why not point the finger straight there save some of the generals who where put on the spot in the first place.Besides most dictators are self proclaimed generals anyway.

Picking on the poor Italians again, how about Visconti Prasca? His invasion of Greece ended up being a defense of Albania.
OK, maybe not the most incompetent, but definitely in the running for top 10.

Grelber

Any Italian Officer of General rank, really they all were pretty poor from the gate.

Moko54 you are displaying again an imperfect knowledge… It was Balotta who saved Rommel's ass twice at Bir el gubi and then at the cauldron…

And Giovanni Messe was head and shoulder above a lot of german generals…

now returning to the discussion…

Field Marshall is a military rank that can be equated to four or five star general so it is fine… reichs marhsall (Goering the dicke mann) is not a military rank…

Tojo, he was a general, he was not a stupid, and surprise surprise was the leader of the pro-western faction in the army… according to german historian Peter Herde in "Pearl Harbour" (very good reading on the japanese political and military planning before WW2) he entered the axis with the hope to use it as a bargaining tool with the americans.

Ok it was a gamble and it didn't work, but for worse Japanese General… uhm Renya Mutaguchi, 15th Army Commander he was the brain behind U-Go the invasion of India and made a lot of planning and command mistakes during the actual operation, also once he slapped a colonel in public beacuse said colonel was eeing Mutaguchi favorite geisha…

Visconti Prasca… never trust a Visconti! (former Venetian Subject here!) got fired after 2 weeks command (ok everything in the invasion of greece was based on "rosy" assumptio it was not a military operation, it was a farce, sadly a lot of people died.

Arrigo

The only reason Rommel is considered a genius is the need to glorify someoen who beats you so many times.
He succeeded so many times because the worst British general of the war (Churchill) kept pressuring competent British generals into campaigs they were not ready for, and then relieving them. Once he faced a competent commander who refused to be rushed into something he was not ready for, he was not so much of a genius any more.

John,

I agree with the spirit of your post… but churchill was a colonel! :)

Also Monty was pretty much fortunate to be in command in a period when Churchill was a bit more quieter than usual, at least for a while (and maybe beacuse first he had to recover compsure after the debacle in malaya, then to invade madagascar… and finally to persuade the americans to land now in north africa…)

Also Rommel is gigantified for his perceived role as hitler opponent, clean general and rally point for post war german army…

Arrigo why do you persist in being insulting, an opinion is an opinion.

In most cases the Italian General officer corp was a pretty poor lot. It is similar to the claims of Rommel being a poor general officer. These are opinions based upon ones feelings of the man's actions.

Anyone who states Rommel was a poor general can be slammed for ignoring his accomplishments with the 7th 'Ghost' Panzer Division in France. And for good measure toss out they do not know history. Easily done because it is an opinion. Then someone can counter the second stater as not knowing history by using Araas as an example, then…….. Just tell me when the game ends please?

Face it none of us is going to write a small book here to fully explain our points of view, so picking apart ones comments based upon incompleteness of facts/details is just silly.

*Disclaimer* The above on Rommel was merely used as an example to make a point.

Anyone who states Rommel was a poor general can be slammed for ignoring his accomplishments with the 7th 'Ghost' Panzer Division in France.

No more than one can be slammed for calling Hood a terrible army commander commander when he was a rather good division commander.

"Any Italian Officer of General rank, really they all were pretty poor from the gate."

this is an insult to my army. And also show how bad are you at historical research. You are putting forward poorly articulated thesis, feebly switching arguments when your initial assertion are proved false. Also you are not voicing opinion but slamming facts everywhere, facts that as has been shown are just you opinion. you have failed to nominate a single italian corps general to back up your supposed fact…

Rommel had a mental break down after france. Fact. It is documented. Rommel personal letter shows every trait of an individual affected by mental illness. Again this has been recognized by several historians. Those are not opinions, those are facts.

I am sorry, but you are insulting, not me.

It would be interesting to speculate on how well a less charismatic general than Rommell would have done. The German army had plenty of competent division and corps commanders (Doh!) who did not have to be in the lead tank, cut off from HQ, and would have paid more attention to logistics.

Uhm,

interesting question… German corps or division commander operating in a detached capacity without proper army level supply system… I feel it is a bit difficult beacuse the german army wasnot expected to operate this way. Rommel and Von Arnim are the two only case and Arnim situation is a bit different. Certianly he was more aware of his mission, he was more prudent and approached his campaign as an holding action. Hee was able to better coordinate his forces and, except very late in the campaign, the supply situation do not seems very bad.

Said that…

Terrain was different, and timeframe was more compressed and in the end he was defeated. But the situation was much more difficult, supply lines were closing fast and the Allies had more strenght and not churchill diversions…

So I think the question, while very very very interesting will remain unaswered.

Eyes roll………………

I am really sorry I didn't compile an entire list for your satisfaction, I did not think in an opinion discussion one was really needed.

IMHO the Italian Army in WWII was poorly served by their leadership, from top to bottom. They reminded me a lot of the British Desert Army during Crusader and the Roman Army of the Early Republic. The soldiers on the ground fought with bravery and tenacity pulling their superiors bacon out of the fire on more then a number of occasions.

I disagree on the Cauldron, it was the Italian soldiers on the ground that fought with bravery and tenacity, with inferior equipment, that pulled Rommel's bacon out of the fire, not the man leading them.

During O'Conners 1940 offensive the Italian soldiers once again proved their metal despite their leaders, fighting even when all was lost. The Sbiba fortified line, if memory serves as I am not at this time going to look it up, one Italian tank commander came out of his tent SMG blazing before he was taken out. The rest of the Italian soldiers fought there with the same tenacity.

When the Soviets demolished the Italian 8th Army, during the Stalingrad counter-offensive, the Italian soldiers once again fought hard against impossible odds (and I mean impossible odds). Out gunned, outnumbered, poorly equipt, and with almost no help from the Germans the Italian soldiers did an outstanding job before succumbing.

Knocking your army, hardly. The truth is, like the Soviets in WWII, a lot of myths have become 'history', sadly. The Italian soldiers of WWII have been blamed far too much for the poor equipment they were forced to use, for the leaders that let them down, and the German apologists that blame the 'other guy' for their defeats.

No my friend I have a lot of respect for the Italian soldiers that fought in WWII because of the burdens they were forced to labor under, and their ability to fight over and above those crutches. Sadly far too many games underrate the Italian soldiers to 'make' the game fit twisted history.

My statement still stands, with the following amendment. Any success of an Italian officer of general rank credit must FIRST be given to the dogsoldiers of the Italian Army who the ones that made it possible despite their leaders.

John the OFM "The only reason Rommel is considered a genius is the need to glorify someoen who beats you so many times."

Uh… that's how it works…

Arrigo, while your view is interesting and a refreshing take on Irwin I don't think he qualifies as a worst general.

Perhaps a "worst" category demands being in command and fumbling so bad that you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In that case the Gazala Brits are definitely runners, especially Ritchie.

Surely there are Soviets that can vie for this honor? And Japanese? And what about the Americans?