"And the Worst Generals of WWII are..." Topic

You were asked – TMP link

Worst Generals of WWII?

And in the final round of voting:

12% [TIE] said "Mark W. Clark" OR "Maurice Gamelin"

10% said "Rodolfo Graziani"

9% [TIE] said "Arthur Percival" OR "Bernard Montgomery"

Monty? Naaaah.
But I have no argument with any of the others.

Agreed. Don't see Monty as one of the worst generals at all. The rest certainly belong up there although I'd probably put Percival at #1.

Monty might be one of the most polarizing, but not the worst

Percival hands down.

Percival?

An unfortunate looking chap, who inherited a command given very low priority indeed, with no modern air support worth a mention. Ill equipped, especially in anti tank weaponry. Based on an island that simply could not be defended from the north, packed with civilians and a collapsing infrastructure.

Would Slim have done better in late 41, early 42? Timing is everything to be a successful general. Be appointed when the equipment and reinforcement is flowing in.

36 000 Japanese troops with an over extended supply line, desperately short of food and ammunition, v 80 0000 empire troops supported by 200 AFVs and 208 AT guns. Yeah, nah.

Was Gamelin a choice?

strange, no Russian Generals

Would disagree with Monty and no opinion on the rest.

Agree that while Monty was polarizing – and, in the words of my uncle, was happy to fight to the last Canadian – he was a decent general who (usually) knew when not to attack (i.e. when you are not ready)

Agree with deadhead. Parcival was given a command, whereas Gamelin created the French Army , planned himself the Dyle Breda move and blinded himself with the Ardennes despite many warnings. And Gamelin's failure has abyssal results.

No russians or jaoanese to vote though.

Rather odd results. In first place you have a general who did rather poorly in the Italian Campaign, but who still eventually WON, tied with a general who commanded one of the worst military disasters in modern history.

In third place you have a general who while controversial and divisive led several victorious campaigns, tied with a general who lost to an army 1/3 his size in one of the worst disasters in British history.

Seems like a lot of the votes were based on personal dislike rather on the actual records of the generals.

von Stauffenberg?

Actually Percival had a long standing role in shaping the defense of Malaya and Singapore. He had been chief of staff there in 1936 and therefore also part of the decisions that were made about how Malaya would be defended – just as Gamelin was part of how the French army was moulded in the 1930's.
Percival was the author of a report in 1937 that highlighted the vulnerability of Malaya to Japanese attack. One of the results of this report was the creation of a separate Corps command for the defence of Malaya and the build up of forces in Malaya.
He also had over six months in 1941 to prepare for the Japanese attack, which based on his prior knowledge of Malaya should have seen the Indian army and Australian troops in Malaya brought up to a much higher standard of readiness and skill – which just didn't happen. To answer a question posed – would Slim have done any better? Yes. Slim never wasted a moment in the preparation and training of his troops. Percival wasted precious time and ended up with no clear plan of how he was going to defend Malaya and troops that were committed to battle seemingly half trained. He seemed unable to make firm decisions about how to defend Singapore. The failure to build defensive positions in Johore and in the northern coastline of Singapore island was just whacky – and the lack of these was drawn directly to Percival's attention by his chief engineer officer.