"Worst Allied general of the war?" Topic

Tough one here, lots to choose from. Monty certainly had his share of enormous -ups, but I don't think he qualifies as worst.

Maybe Clark for Monte Cassino? But, boy, even though that cost a lot more lives than Market-Garden, he had a lot better excuse than Monty.

Toss up between those two, I guess.

Nah. Monty!

Walter Short, Pearl Harbor

Weygand?

How about Fredendahl, or ritchie? Both got pounded by Rommel, and both where clearly out of thier depth.

Lots more I am sure. Probably the worst is some soviet that nobody even remebers because he got wiped out so quickly.

Fredenhall. Getting clobbered was one thing, getting clobbered while hunkering down a zillion miles behind the front in a bunker you wasted an entire engineer battalion working on made him a cowardly incompetent poltroon.

Monty was a good general, and I'm saying this as someone who thinks he was a pompus twit.

My vote goes to General Gamelin. His command post was likened to a submarine on land as it had no telephones or radios.

Semyon Budyonny, who during the period of July-September 1941, commanded the Soviet Southwestern Direction (Southwestern and Southern Fronts) during one of the greatest routs in military history. His mission was to defend against the German invasion of Ukraine. His actions accounted for his forces being surrounded after the Battles of Uman and Kiev, bagging 1.5 million men for the Germans.

I don't care who of the western allies you call upon, nobody comes close.

Percival first. His defense of Singapore and handling of Malaya was dreadful. Too many reserves. If even half of them had been up front, they could have urinated on the Japanese and drowned their offensive!

MacArthur second. But for his personal publicity machine, his handling of the initial defense of the Phillipines should have seen him busted down to buck private. It was certainly no better than Percival.

Worst: Ritchie. At Gazala Ritchie had:

A bigger army
More tanks
Better tanks
Better logistics
More guns
More planes
Dense fortifications
High level of mobility,

And he got whupped by a tactically bold, but logistically indifferent (both in quantities of and attitudes towards) German general.

Mark Clark, according to Alan Whicker he was a vain, egotistical man who once threatend to fire on British troops if it looked like they were going to liberate Rome first!
Due to his personal glory hunting the allied war cemeteries are a lot fuller than they might have been.

And add any Allied general involved in the Hurtgen Forest, with the exception of Gen Gavin, he actually went to have a look for himself to see how bad it was.

Agree on Hurtgen, even though it hits some of my long-favored generals (including Bradley).

Clark is a good contender. The slaughter of the Texans on the Rapido. Rome was even worse. By directing his troops north west towards Rome, he did not cut off the retreating Germans, who lived to fight another day (Carlo D'Este details this convincingly). To make matters worse, Rome fell on June 5, 1944 and it's liberation was overshadowed by D-Day. So much for so little.

Utterly agreed on Mark Clark.

MacArthur or Clark……probably Clark,
MacArthur has bit more of an excuse for being a fool, but Clark acted purely out of self-glorification, which occassionally a general can get away with; IF he has the talent to back it up. Clark lacked everything apart his sense of self importance.

Definately Mark Clark for the US, and for us Brits it had to be Percival.

Percival at Singapore had political interference that clark never had. And Clark's disasters were not limited to one disaster. He got himself a hatrick. At one point, he blamed the Navy just after they had rescued him and at another he blamed the Airforce just after they saved his forces and he did the worst deployment of airbourne forces for any sea borne beach landing assault ever!

you didn't hear percival blaming the Navy who he could claim let him down big time, or the Airforce who were unable to interdict the japanese and he never had any paratroops!

The Nationalist Chinese seem to have had some real winners.
-Kle.

Monty had his share of cockups? Like D-Day or El Alamein or crossing the Rhine for example? What a strange choice.

My vote will always go to Percival. What a , and he got my grandfather killed.

I'm throwing my vote towards Budenny as well. If the East is going to claim credit for winning, as seems to be the case, then they get to claim blowing it big time when the Germans almost destroyed the pre-war Red Army thanks to Stalin's cronies in command.

MacArthur

Two more votes for Percival and Clark.

Doug

Fredendhall hands down for the coalition title… you can beat him, even budenny has better moments…

Percival was not so bad I suggest you to look at the recent "The Defence and Fall of Singapore" by Brian Farrell, it has some interesting perspective on Singapore, Percival had essential his hands tied by a series of order forcing him to defend each RAf airbase, with planes or without…

I am at loss to find very bad British Generals… Ritchie and Browning are on the list… but on the whole Imperial guys were competent… uhm noooooo

I have oneeeeeeee

Orde Wingate, according to Slim, Fergusson and other he was a bummer…

In soviet union you can't beat Budenny…

now let see the US… uhm uhm uhm… having removed Fredendhall as the worst of the coalition… I would say Clark… for all the reason mentioned plus his stupid handlinh of special operations in Torch… he waster lives for nothing.

And Lewis A. Brereton… you do not know him probably… he was the FEAF air component commander the one who got his air force smashed at Clark Field(even if you can't blames him or the proconsul they acted promptly under vague order from Marhsll, the plane get caught refuelling after having beeing airborne for hours due to bad weather on formosa that prevented the Japanese to take off on schedule…). Move forward some years… and our same Brereton was in command of the 1st AAA and failed ot exercise any form of command on it… even messing the flight swchedule (they could have squyeezed two drop on first day getting more stuff both to Gavin and Urquarth).

By the way Macarthur in the philippine held until May wrecking two Japanese divisions… not bad in the end. And after the initial adaptation ad Buna-Sananda his operation in New Guines are a masterpiece. Difficult to have him in the worst category…

Arrigo

Monty had his share of cockups? Like D-Day or El Alamein or crossing the Rhine for example? What a strange choice.

Ignoring the opening of Antwerp harbour inorder to send 3 divisions of paratroopers on a fool errand. Probably resulted in the war lasting 4-6 months longer than it needed

On top of everything else, Budyenny was likely involved, in some fashion, in the execution of Isaac Babel. Babel had been a marked man since the publication of Red Cavalry, an amazing book on the horrific 1920 "campaign" into Poland.

I dunno about Budyenny, he's like the fictional guy who took command of Titanic after it already hit the iceberg. Soviet generals were so handcuffed by central command and the effects of the purges I doubt even Zhukov could stop the steamroller (in fact, he lost quite a few offensives). I go with Clark. Macarthur was pompous and had a Philippine bias, but the spark of intelligence was there. Monty was not the worst by a long shot. Fredendall only had one chance and screwed it up so bad who could say what would have happened had he a second.

Budenny in wolrd war two was more at home with girls and alchohols than military operations!

some generals were handcuffed by Stalian, but Budenny was doing everything by himself!

Monty was good, his problem was that he was a jerk and hid a lot of his own good achievements, but definitely he has no place in this list.

I think a lot of us agree with Mark Clark, but still you have to admit… Fredenall has a certain fashination especially with his super duper command center…

Arrigo

Ignoring the opening of Antwerp harbour inorder to send 3 divisions of paratroopers on a fool errand. Probably resulted in the war lasting 4-6 months longer than it needed

You missed the bit about Eisenhower being supreme allied commander then?

Tough one here, lots to choose from. Monty certainly had his share of enormous -ups, but I don't think he qualifies as worst.

Did you start this thread just to abuse Montgomery and provoke a response, or could there be some deeper purpose? Thought not. Why do you bother?

MacArthur managed to win the Pacific War while minimizing Allied casualties. Monty was responsible for a despicable blood bath that any reasonable general would have avoided.

BTW Dude, Market-Garden was Mont'y baby, and no one else'. Let's not be TOO typical, shall we? Praise all our own generals when they win, but excoriate the 'foreigners' in the high command when they lose? Or is the high command responsible for all of Monty's wins as well?

Clark doesn`t even come out well in his own auto-biography, he was just so vain and stupid. Should have been shot after Rome…………

Hi

My vote is for Mark Clark. After reading about the Italian
campaign, I'm so happy my Dad got out of the 45th Division and into B-24.

' Let's not be TOO typical'

Quite, heal thyself, yawn.

Pile on Macarthur.

Mind Clark going for a publicity shoot rather than trapping a german army or two does bear heavily.

Who was the Army Air Corp leader who convinced Roosevelt that if we set up enough of a bombing campaign from China the Japs would give in? Lemay? Kind of makes me wish Stillwell was the Supremem CinC Pacific.

Did you start this thread just to abuse Montgomery and provoke a response, or could there be some deeper purpose? Thought not. Why do you bother?

I was surprised a Brit wasn't somehow the worst Axis General of the war.

LOL, this is where we discover that Graziani was actually British.

"Monty was responsible for a despicable blood bath that any reasonable general would have avoided."

Which blood bath did you have in mind? I'm genuinely confused, unless this is some strange parallel WW2 we are talking about. There were lots of worse British Generals than BL Montgomery, even if he was more of a pompus ass than most of them.

The commander of the American 36th Infantry Division --
MG John E. Dahlquist. The 36th Infantry was derived from Texas National Guard units.

Dahlquist replaced MG Fred L. Walker as the commander of the 36th Infantry Division on July 7, 1944. At that time the 442nd Regimental combat team (Japanese Americans) was attached to the 36th. Dahlquist continually ignored intelligence reports and repeatedly ordered his troops into near suicidal situations. The 442nd and the rest of the 36th would earn more than their share of medals -- quite often posthumously. The 36th suffered ridiculous numbers of unnecessary casualties because Dahlquest repeatedly discounted or ignored reports of know German positions or troop concentrations.

The most notable of these blunders involved the 442nd's rescue of the "Lost Battalion" at Biffontaine. Over a five-day period, from 26 October to 30 October 1944, the 442nd suffered the loss of nearly half of its roster—over 800 casualties, including 121 dead—while rescuing 211 members of the 36th Infantry Division's 1st Battalion, 141st Infantry, which had been surrounded by German forces in the Vosges mountains since 24 October.

Dahlquist's tactical failings, racism, and lack of regard for the lives of his men became legendary.

The 442nd would later be decorated for their performance at Biffontaine. One story I have heard is that when Dahlquist was handing out medals for this heroic action, some or all of the members of the 442nd refused to salute him -- apparently this included white officers and NCO's.

mjc

Part of the US problem seems to be that many of the generals had an eye on the presidency, every one seemed to have a press officer to boost their victories and blame defeats on others.

They were rivals first and foremost and this cost many lives of GIs

The French General Gamelin could of been a bit more capable perhaps.

Sorry gentlemen. This is a no brainer -- Maurice Gamelin.

He took an army designed for static defense and chose to try and take on the Germans at their own game of mobile warfare. Further, to do so he had to commit all of his mobile reserves; leaving nothing should something unexpected occur --- like panzers at Sedan.

To engage in this idiocy, he had to override ALL of his army and army group commanders. They were opposed to the plan (the Breda option) to a man.

And as has been noted, he compounded it all by banning radios and telephones from his HQ.

Haven't we done this one before and aren't there a larger number of folks around here with DHing scars and stifles as a direct result?

The French High Command deserves the honor. Certainly not the Poilu.

Every general makes their mistakes, that's true, but the catastrophic results of said mistakes should be thequalifications for being the worst genral.

Today, the French military is associated with the defeat of 1940. Have people really associated the Russians with their early defeats in 1941-1942? You decide.

Kliment Voroshilov

I think people are too harsh on the French in 1939-1940. I mean, after what had happened at Verdun, they never really recovered enough to repel an attack, especially a heavily mechanised one.

I vote for Mark Clark. Though I support the Allies of course, I wish some German sniper had picked him off when he did that stupid parade through Rome.

Ok……………….

Budenny managed, all by himself, to get his head handed to him by the Germans. (But he was commanding an army in crisis BEFORE the Germans crossed the border)

Gamelin stuck his neck out and tried to play the same game as the Germans, without the brains to use radio communication to stay in 'tank time'. (But Gamelin wasn't even close to being trained to 'think' as a true tank commander should)

Ritiche DID have everything he needed to win Gazala but managed to still get his butt handed to him. (But he was already 'burned out', as other commanders around him said before the battle started)

So the three men above got pretty good reasons for getting their butts handed to them the question should be who knew better and still managed to get their face smacked off.

In that case my vote is for Monty for Operation Goodwood, which almost cost him his career, and for Operation Market Garden for ignoring intel that told him what was in front of him.

I really cannot see why this is turning into a Monty/Clark hatefest, guys (excepting the fun factor, of course). Budenny lost 1.5 *million* men and had the complete confidence of his government (in the form of Stalin) while this was happening; he wasn't "handicapped" in any way at all, except by having the political-military skills of trout and therefore being no threat to Uncle Joe.

I defy anyone to name another general on the "Allied" side who could have lost so many men, laid open the way to his nation's capital, and still retained the favor of his nation's leadership, in the sense that he wasn't shot or imprisoned for his incompetence.

I defy anyone to name another general on the "Allied" side…

Applying those as your criteria could only possibly produce Soviet candidates, though – there's no way a western allied general could've racked up a fraction of those casualties before being relieved, but that doesn't mean they were necessarily better than their Soviet counterparts…. You seem to be implying that to qualify as "worst general" you have to retain the confidence of the powers that be, which seems a rather contrary position…. (You also seem to think he was effectively "chosen for failure" by Stalin, which may qualify him for an exemption….)

Still Budenny is difficult to beat on the scale, even if Fredendhall with his mobile command post…

You seem to be implying that to qualify as "worst general" you have to retain the confidence of the powers that be, which seems a rather contrary position….

This is kind of like the argument that is oftne applied to a baseball pitcher who loses 20+ games. "He has to be a pretty good pitcher to be given that many starts!"

Seriously, though, I think it applies to generals.
A mere division commander is not at the level to do real damage, except to his own division, or his neighbors. To really shine at mediocrity, you must rise to a level in which to do real lasting damage.
To call it unfair to give so much love to a Russian because an American or British general would have been long releived is to miss the point. Soviet fans love to point out that Russia socked the Germans with 80% of their casualties, and so deserve credit for winning the war almost singlehandedly.
Likewise, the Soviets should get the credit for worst generals. Unfair, sure, but this is the West, where we only know about the glorious blunders of the Yanks and Bits.

Since such non-commanders as Goering and Himmler are getting so much love on the "Worst Axis General" thread, let me propose Churchill.
Churchill almost singlehandedly lost the war in North Africa, starting with the expedition to Greece which robbed the British of the momentum to kick the Italians out of Africa.
THEN, he interfered in every way possible to pressure his generals to attack when they were not ready.
It wasn't until he appointed a competent (no more competent than those he replaced) general who refused to be rushed and refused to fight until he was ready, did Churchill succeed.
At least he kept the harebrained Yanks from invading France in 1942 or 1943, but that's about the only thing he did strategically.

A great man inspirationally, but a loser strategically.

He did some other good things (setting a strategic plan to follow that shaped the entire UK and imperial war efferto and a policy who tried everything to get the US onboard), he has a problem too, too often good long range ideas of him (like a certain campaign in acertain peninsula called Gallipoli) get bogged in pitifull execution.

His assumption to refuse to confront Germany in the mainland to build strenght for the decisive confrontation was good, sadly he then wasted this strenght in useless smaller operations. He alsa tended to support indecisive operations at the expenses of more important tasks. The wasteful attempt to relieve tobruk before Crusader, his insistence to give more importance to mediterranean rather than far east in 1940-41 when he still had time to imnprove situation in burma and malaya. Often strenght carefully accumulated was wasted in peripheral operations without any real consequence. He had a dark streak of trying to get cheap immediate reuslts on the sidelines… then getting smashed in the main areas…

He was good a setting priorties, not so good at following Also an invasion of france in 1943 was not so bad as a lot of people think: the bulk of the german garrison of 1944 was in russia and still the germans were in no position to abandon the mediterranean (even after Anvil-Dragoon Hitler refused to withdraw forces from italy, to be quite honest after Diadem Italy become essentially an holding action with the Germans outnumbering the allies, probably Hitler would have done the same in 1943, and if he abandoned italy altogheter persuading any italian government to switch side with an intact army and air force would have been not so difficult), it would have been more cost effective than historical Italy altogheter.

The problem with churchill was that from 1943 onward his priority was not anymore defeating Germany, but stopping uncle Joe…

Great ideas, poor execution…