Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Worst generals

Discussion in 'Leaders of World War 2' started by me262 phpbb3, Feb 13, 2004.

  1. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    Of course the german main thrust did go trough Belgium and Luxembourg.

    It was part of the german plan to attract french forces into Belgium.The french were to think the germans would do like in 14 when they tried trough Belgium to outflank the french army.But unlike in WW1, where the main german forces lay at their right flank, they 1940 it were in the center of their front.

    But the main part of the Manstein plan was Guderians 19th armoured corps(1+2+10 th armoured divisions) which only passed trough Luxembourg and the south of Belgium then attacked at the weakest part of the french front(9 th Army in the Ardennes)at Sedan.
    After having broken trough here, Guderian pushed to the Channel, to cut off all allied forces ventured into Belgium.
     
  2. 2ndLegion

    2ndLegion New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Israel
    via TanksinWW2
    He also tried to undermine the leadership of the ressistance, and mocked both Henri Frenay, and DAstier when they asked him if he will push to get them arms(They were the heads of the two largest "Gaullist" ressistances).

    However Hitler actually court martialed Manstien (Who was the reason for victory in France) for disagreeing with him over tactics in Russia, Chamberlin gave Hitler many countries, Daladier was little more then a follower of Chamberlin and was as indecisive in Paris during a riot threat, Gamelin lost to the Germans with a superior force, and Stalin refused to listen to his own intelligence, British and "Gaullist" intelligence, although he did to his credit do so more then Hitler (See my list I have Hitler at a higher level of incompetence).

    So although Giraud was only average, was worse then De Gaulle to deal with, undermined the FFI, constantly antagonized the supreme allied commander it is small compared to what the bigger idiots did.
     
  3. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Still, appeasement politics, however ridiculous in hindsight, were a logical path to follow after the horrors of WW1. The question a historian would pose is, if you didn't know that there had ever been a WW2 (which is the same as not to know there would be), would you have opposed appeasement that much?
     
  4. 2ndLegion

    2ndLegion New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Israel
    via TanksinWW2
    I wouldn't oppose appeasment on Austria or Poland, but I would on Czechoslavakia because.

    1.The British and French had no right to force the Czechs to give up their land, and industrial belt. The Czechs were willing to fight for what was theirs, and didn't at least get the right to send an ambassador to Munich.

    If Chamberlin and Daladier wanted to end the Alliance with the Czechs they should have done it openly and honestly.

    What happened at Munich was either malice or incompetence.

    So the answer is I would not have been so against appeasement because few knew of Hitlers plans, but I would not have betrayed an ally for wanting to keep what belonged to it by right.

    The equal today of what happened then would be if Syria and Libya threatened to go to war with Isreal, and the United States steps in to give the Syrians and Libyans Tel Aviv, Ascolon, and Haifa, as well as making Isreal completely disarm.
     
  5. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    And that sums up why appeasement is, was, and always will be an incredibly bad idea. It has never worked, to the best of my knowledge, nor will it ever, since it invariably encourages the one being appeased to want more. And more. And ever more.
     
  6. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Certainly so!

    But the opposite is the curious "balance of power" diplomacy that controlled Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries; wars would break out at any change in the equasion simply to maintain the sovereignity of every state. An alliance in this case was merely a convenient way to improve your own position for as long as required.
     
  7. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    The "balacne of power" diplomacy works well as long that there is not one nation that feels strong enough to change this balance of power and accepts figthing all the others combined.

    From 1790 till 1815 France tought herself strong enough to control Europe, after her defeat there was no major war in Europe for the following 100 years.

    In 1914 till 1945 it was Germany's turn to feel herself able to control Europe....

    Thankfully after 1945, the russians never really tried the same....
     
  8. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    The Crimean war was quite major. Also, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871 was so large in its impacts and results that it can be considered quite a major war.
    The best example of balance-of-power politics! The Cold war!
     
  9. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    The crimean war was big by the powers who joined in, but small if you consider the war objectives of each power.
    And the figthing only took place on a rather small area.

    The franco-prussian war of course had major impacts, but as a war it was small, only 2 belligerants.
     
  10. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    I'll say it had major impacts! The loss of Alsace and Lorraine, and the desire to get them back, not only helped urge France onto the path towards WW1, but also formed the lynchpin of France's strategic military planning prior to 1914.
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    via TanksinWW2
    The french military only had one good leader , "Napolean" and that was in the early 19th century , for good sakes the french military leaders didn't even believe in radio's and that was in 1940!! , and Hittler , Georing, and himmler were pretty bad too.
     
  12. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    Fortunately we had some great commanders in WW1 too.
    And also in WW2, some generals like Leclerc, Juin and others did really good....

    You're more or less right about the radio's but then again how many large armies were there in 1940 that were sufficiently well equipped with radios??
     
  13. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    One.
    Germany.
     
  14. Canadian_Super_Patriot

    Canadian_Super_Patriot recruit

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The french army had radios , the generals didn't believe in using them , they still had the stubborn generals that used world war 1 tactics , they used runners and Pigeons ! , pigeons that word did they have for stoned back then .
     
  15. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    Sometimes, sure, but such methods were exceptional.
     
  16. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    All nations had radios. But, only Germany was sufficiently equipped with them. Britain, for example, had very few radios per unit, and the ones they did have were unreliable and very short-ranged. Oh, and bulky. We were not alone in this!
    Find a nation beyond Germany who did not have WW1-mindset Generals in charge (many had some up & coming bright stars, but not in charge!).
     
  17. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Very true, although Germany did have some of that type, but most of them didn't outlast 1940.
     
  18. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    mussilini stunk bad he didn't do anything right beat by the greeks,lost albania,got wasted in africa,lost yugolslavia the only way he ever did anything wright was when he invaded albania in the 30's
     
  19. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    I talked to a ww2 vet who faught in Italy his radio battery weighed like around 18 pounds thats the battery plus the intire thing which was like 30 pounds thats around 40 pounds (he was a very skinny guy)
     
  20. big x phpbb3

    big x phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    monty a worst general?surley thats a joke,have u actually saw the battles he won?
     

Share This Page