worst commander of the war?

I'm supprised lucas and clarke havent had a look in,there are usually a few lucas and clarke bashers.

Jeffinmnusa:i got to say kliment voroshilov has got me interested

Biography of Marshal of Soviet Union Kliment Efremovich Voroshilov - (Климент Ефремович Ворошилов)


Useful site too by the way.

 

I'll be the guy. Mark Clark was THE worst Allied Commander, for soooo many reasons. Alexander is second. Goering on the Axis side.

 

Feel free to dislike him as you chose, but it wasn't he who wished to use the bombs to "justify their expense", in fact I know of no such attitude held by anyone in the upper echelons of the US government who did hold that position. So that last postion of your's; ...However, the thought of a couple of hundred thousand people being killed to justify an expenditure is quite loathsome." remains unfounded. Only your opinion, the bombs were dropped to end the war and the bloodshed in as rapid a fashion as possible.

There were nearly 500,000 non-combatants killed in the Japanese homelands, NOT counting the atomics. A slow starvation and fire-bombing of them would have killed far more, as would an invasion. Then we (western allies) might also have to worry about Stalin coming down from the north and occupying the north of Japan just as he did the east of Germany. It hadn't been agreed to as in Germany, but without the bomb what was to stop him? There is also the possibilty that the final mission flown against Japan (Aug. 14th) was to demonstrate to Stalin that our B-29s could reach the northern extremes of the home islands, since he and the Red Army were sitting on Southern Sakhalin Island, a mere 40 miles from Hokaido island.

Truman was less trusting of Stalin than FDR had been, and letting "Uncle Joe" know he would take little if any guff of the man was important for the future of occupied Japan.

But Groves wasn't responsible for the use of, nor decision to use the atomics. Dislike him if you like, but that shouldn't be the reason.

 

Someone above mentioned Heinrich Himmler as a lousy commander-and that Hitler HAD to be nuts for appointing him as such--im in full agreement with the Gents statement.

Also, someone else mentioned Hermann Wilhelm Goring and kinda gave him a free pass on the subject but--Hermann, used WWII as mainly a time to enjoy the best of everything and to have an almost continuous "party" from 1939-to-Capitulation.

 

Hello Carl,

actually I think that Herrman didn't have much time for parties - I believe the poor guy was quite under stress trying to figure out how he could get his hands on all the loot in Europe

Regards
Kruska

 

I think the poor guy was under more stress when he swallowed a cyanide pill while waiting for the noose.

 

Hello Bob Guercio,

I think in his progressed delirium Hermann mistook the cyanide capsule for a reincarnation pill

Regards
Kruska

 

You misread his post, I think. He doesn't like the general because the general's rationale for dropping the bomb was...strange. He doesn't have an expressed opinion on whether Hiroshima/Nagasaki were justified or not, or how other people rationalized the dropping of the bomb.




Just think about someone joining the Army because they want to kill as many people as possible without repurcussions. The idea might be good, but the intent could be bad. "Springtime For Hitler" would be a comedic example.

 

my point is that General Groves wasn't in charge of any of the logistics of the use of the bomb, not the targets, not the use to "justify their expense". Groves most certainly did NOT join the the Army because he wanted to "kill as many people as possible without repurcussions". He was an engineer, in the Army for years before the "bomb" was a twinkle in Szilard's eye, and hated being given the job of "ram-rodding" the Manhattan Project. But as a good soldier, he swallowed his objections and performed his assigned task as well as humanly possible. At that he was an exempliary officer, not one of the worst.

If the fellow wants to "dislike" Groves, he should use a better reason than one that is patently incorrect.

 

It's either you confused three tangents, or I have no idea what you are saying. Probably all, with #2 being accentuated.

...Let me get this straight. Bob is saying that General Leslie Groves' wanted the bomb to be dropped. You (brndirt1) are saying that Leslie Groves didn't want the bomb to be dropped.

Is that correct? Because who had power and jurisdiction and Order 3.193485 Subsection Zero-Dash-Orange and morality and lives saved and following orders isn't what Bob is saying, he just doesn't like what he perceives Leslie Grove's attitude to be. And you are saying that Leslie Grove's attitude wasn't like that...right?

A better analogy would probably be people hating on Tom Cruise for liking Scientology, I guess, though it really doesn't fit well. "Springtime for Hitler" still applies best, I think. The Army analogy applies somewhat, though you appear to have confused it, so it probably wasn't as clear as I should have put it.

 

Hi K/ that and he was stressed out from having planned all of those trips to go Grouse-hunting in the Vienna Woods. Oh the Migraines that must have caused them at LW HQ :lol: :lol:

 

What about Maurice Gamelin and Rodolfo Graziani ?
Neither seemed to undersand a thing about modern mecanized troops capability or how to get results out the troops.
Both lost a major battle because of command paralisys leaving the troops be defeated piecemeal.
Graziani is also involved in war crimes and a supporter of Mussolini's racist laws.

 

I am saying only two things, one 1) Leslie Groves had no part in the bomb being dropped or not, wanting it dropped or not doesn't come into play. Two 2) Leslie Groves did the job he was assigned to do at a level it is unlikely anyother commander could have; judging him by his performance that makes him one of the best commanders, not the worst. Like him or dislike him as you wish, his performace not a perceived attitude is all that should come into play on a question like this. Trying to falsely place Groves in the "justify the expense" section is simply incorrect.

I don't mind if Bob dislikes Groves, I respect the man for doing a job he didn't want, and doing it better than any other General of the moment. He was chosen for the job because he was the best in the Army at bringing in a giant project, on time and under budget, i.e. construction of the Pentagon.

 

General Georges 1940, inept in the extreme. Fall of France may not have been his fault, but his leadership of the critical armies that could have changed somethng, and his subsequent understanding of a fast moving battle left him open to the charge of being the worst general in command of an army grouping that I have come across...

Percival, someone else mentions, is a knee jerk to even me, but even he was dealt a rotten hand. He sent enough warnings out and like present times, requested the govt of the day honour its commitment to previous manpower and equipment plans made from 30s. This they could not do for reasons we are aware of in Mid east and Europe, but its unfair to lay the blame at his generalship. A disaster for British arms yes, but not of his making.

 

You didn't exactly address his point, though.

We're at an impasse, so I'm dropping this.

 

Agreed, me too.

 

Hi all, I can't believe no one has mentioned Lloyd Fredendall.

Author Charles MacDonald described Fredendall as a "man of bombast and bravado in speech and manner who failed to live up to the image he tried to create." The American historian (and retired Army officer) Carlo D'Este has described Fredendall as "...one of the most inept senior officers to hold a high command during World War II." 2nd Armored Division commander Ernest Harmon, in his after-action report for the Kasserine battles, called Fredendall "a son of a bitch" and later said he was both a moral and physical coward.

Cheers

 

Checked out Fredendall,interesting reading
Lloyd Fredendall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I can see why you might think Clark was rubbish, not so much Alexander. Bit harsh on both, IMO.

 

i have to agree he was at least iin the top 5: Should have ignored Hitlers orders, ordered a breakout attempt and taken the consequences, even if it were a firing squad from Hitler; since in retrospect of what happened it could hardly have been worse. By doing this Paulus might have saved many of his men.