Worst General in WW2

Im not as well versed on alot of the generals-certainly not as much as some of you are- but for my money? Courtney Hodges was pretty bad. Look at how we floundered in the Hurtgen forest for so long, overlooking obvious objectives like Roer river dam until it was an afterthought. To this day the Hurtgen is still thought of by some as Americas largest military blunder of all time, so that must count for something in this discussion.

 

I say Hitler was the worst General of all time. Sure a great politician and a developer of Germany, but when it came to leading an army, he failed miserably.

You can also look at the facts behind the amount of failures he had, many due to his stubborness. The determination of the "no retreat" order, the argued desicisions about the Evacuation of Dunkirk, the Total invasion of the Soviet Union, the limited force sent to Africa, the complete waste of resources used to develop 'super weapons' such as the V Rocket, esperimental aircraft and in main ways, the Navy its self, or to be more specific, battleships.

 

i would also agree with keystones comment concerning hodges.
the u.s 9th army c.o simpson was another often overlooked general.he was imo the finest u.s general in the e.t.o.

 

answering redcoats post of 116,i dont believe there was a feud between monty and tedder.tedder loathed montys battlefield skill.jealousey is a terrible thing imo.yours,lee.

 

general paulus he was a good tactition but nowhere near good enough to command the entire 6th army!

 

Well, I'll redress my opinion and back it with facts. I also agree it's the best way to evaluate the generals without getting personal. I chose Voroshilov because the men was incompetent behond words.
First, the Winter war. He was the comander of the Russian forces in the leningrad district. He attacked and we all know what happened right?
He comited many blunders including not giving his men even a small briefing on the conditions they were supposed to fight! Also, the attacks were all disorganised and the various branches of the army didn't cooperate between them.
Oh he also didn't take into account the terrain and communication lines available to the fins.
In early Barbarrossa his blunders continued (he some blame on the Siege of Leningrad. Namely, he allowed it!) tough not so visible as everything was crumbling.


So, all in all, he never did anything right comand wise.



Cheers...

 

I think I have a simple answer to this question which is: Could it be that the worst General in WWII, is the one that cost the most of his Soldiers lives?

My opinionated answer is: In that case-which does include most definately the Heer, i'd have to say that it has to be Goring.

This way, almost nobody can get irritated with another persons reply ;-))

Someone said that Rommel was the best over-all WWII General--I digress and will say that there are too many "best Generals" to choose from.

 

There are so many to pick from. For the "Worst" or the "Best". And so many countries to pick from.

 

Hello C. Evans,

I think Goering is a very good candidate, but Stalin's orders and actions killed far more soldiers (Especially Russian soldiers) then those of Goering.

So will it be Stalin?

Regards
Kruska

 

It would be most unwise to use this criteria. Consider the frightful loss of life at Omaha etc. Does this alone make Eisenhower the worst? Of course not.

 

About Monty,
What i wrote about him was told by a brigade general(general the brigada) of the argentine army who teaches strategy..and i bet he knows much more than both of us...

 

yet i never said he was the worst general...

 

(Unofficial ''General'') Adolf Hitler, Fuerher of the German Reich
-Truley only earning the rank of Corporal and still overiding his competent military commanders into stretching German forces to thin by invading the Soviet Union/Russia while all conventional (and intelligent unconventional for that matter) said not to. Thus weakining the rest of his forces across Europe and in the end losing the war.

(Official General) John E. Dahlquist, 4 Star General of the Allied-U.S Army.
-He wasn't nessicarily THE worst tactician (while not the best either) but he was a terrible leader in general with supbar military commanding skills. He drove his soliders into fatigue due to his incompetance.

 

Well, he was never a general was he? But also, I think you have to remember that whilst Stalin cost many millions of his mens lives (particularly early on) he did contribute to Soviet victory in quite a big way. As a leader he also did inspire a certain amount of dedication in those he commanded (soviet troops would cry 'Za Stalina' and 'Za Rodina' as they charged, the obvious suggestion being that Stalin and the Motherland were identified as the same thing, can't think of anyone fighting for Goering). I guess the short version is that Stalin did have some strengths as a leader, I can't identify many of Goering's.

 

yes,the u.s 9th army was commanded by gen simpson,but imo he learned most of his trade whilst serving in british 21st a.g.under our monty.yours,4th wilts.

 

Hi Kruska, a great choice but, as Stefan wisely and correctfully pointed out-stalin wasn't a Henerale ;-)) But good choice anyway ;-))

PS, Can the blame for Russian losses be solely placed on Zhukov's shoulders? Though this great General won his battles, in order to win them, he HAD to lose quite a few of his soldiers in doing so.

 

Hi H/ I don't see why I can't use this criteria? The usage of the Omaha landings & casualties (respectively-and meaning no disrespect towards our losses there and any of our G.I's who fought there) were so small compared to some that Goring was responsible for. Cases in point: Goring lost the Battle of Britain and cause countless and needless German casualties. No thanks to Goring (again) the Germans lost at Stalingrad. Now to compare the losses at Stalingrad to those on Omaha Beach, you just can't do so. The same thing can be said for the Battle of Britain. Both were in the extreme from one end of the spectrum to the other.

As for Ike being a lousy General-a lousy general he was not. Also, the way Ike did things compared to the way Goring did things, was much more different. Sure Ike made a few mistakes somewhere along the lines but, Goring made so many more blunders it aint funny to think about.

Now the question is, what did Goring do right? The only thing I can think of, is that his parties must have been fantastic to go to. While the average Landser in the field did without, Goring made up for it at his parties.

 

Great point Stefan, VERY well-said.

 

Hello C. Evans,

Not just the parties which were known throughout the Reich , no he also increased the Carat value for the Diamonds.

As Stefan mentioned correcty Stalin wasn't a Front General, but he was the Supreme Commander of the Soviet Forces and titled as Generalissimo (General of Generals) who murdered his own Officer Corps, therefore did a blunder in regards to attacking Finland and on Hitlers attack on Russia in the initial stage, send millions to the Gullagand and took care of his soldiers in the same loving manner as Hitler - after all there were soldiers and civilians who shouted Heil Hitler before putting themselves a 9mm in there heads. Indeed it will be very hard to beat Goering for that title but if Stalin would run under the designation of General, he would be an even more likly candidate.

Lets see how the other members place these two if Stalin is aquitted as a rightfull candidate which oops.. could even place Hitler into the rank of candidate - being Supreme Commander but no Generalissimo Title.

Regards
Kruska