Worst General in WW2

Thanks Richard but ya gota add Clark. And that's a rap !!

 

Just Germans and Allied generals? What about the Japanese?

Lt. General Harukichi Hyakutake comes to mind. He is in my list because he was assigned to an command the equivalent of an army corps when in my opinion, he is unqualified.
His background was signals and intelligence. He was the guy who had Guadalcanal in his area. Despite his background, he failed to come up with a clear picture of what the Japanese were actually facing in that island.
Essentially, I think he was assigned a command that he was unfit for.

 

I would certainly agree that the Japanese had more than their fair share of incompetent generals who often issued illogical orders and performed unfathomable acts. General Hyakutake was one of these, although in his case, it must be said the entire Japanese IGHQ failed to put together an accurate picture of what it was up against on Guadalcanal until far too late. Part of the reason for this was that it was an article of faith with the IGHQ staff that it would be impossible for the US to launch an offensive in the Pacific until the latter half of 1943, and that the Guadalcanal invasion must therefore represent noting more than a reconnaissance in force. Japanese intelligence, which was pretty decent pre-war, began to lose ground after Pearl Harbor, and by August, 1942, was entirely inadequate.

For some reason, the Japanese military was convinced that the Japanese soldier was inherently superior to all other fighting forces in night attacks and hand-to-hand fighting. The IJA spent a great deal of time training for such attacks and made them a central part of it's infantry doctrine. These attacks sometimes worked against poorly led, poorly trained, demoralized troops such as the Chinese, but when the Japanese encountered troops such as the US Marines in the Pacific it became obvious the Japanese were not that good at hand-to-hand fighting, often suffering losses of ten to one in such attacks. Nevertheless, Lt. General Cho, Chief of Staff to the Japanese 32nd. Army defending Okinawa, talked General Ushijima into approving a night attack on US forces. The result was massive losses with little harm to the US Marines and US Army. This essentially broke the back of the Japanese defense of Okinawa.

But the award for absolute worst performance by a Japanese general officer has to go to Vice-Admiral Kakuta Kakuji, commander of the First Air Fleet on Guam during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Admiral Kakuta, knowing full well that Admiral Ozawa was depending on his forces to help defeat the American fleet under Spruance, kept reporting to Ozawa that his aircraft were inflicting heavy damage on the American forces when, in fact, Kakuta was fully aware his planes had been completely destroyed. Kakuta never explained why he knowingly deceived Ozawa and thereby contributed to Ozawa's defeat.

 

With all due respect to everyone that has posted. How would any of you armchair generals have handled the situation.

Monty; did what he did, he was slow and annoyingly methodical, but he got results, he won battles.

Patton; arrogant, and slap happy, but he won battles.

Paulus; failed in Stalingrad, but like true officer he followed orders, he was promised things that others could not deliver, he was sold out, left to rot.

What about the Soviets Generals that were defeated and captured in the cauldron battles early on in Operation Barbarossa were they failures or the result of Stalin's costly purging of the officer corps prior to WW2.

Or the Italian Generals that come under constant slagging, i know in some cases that the Italians were starving and dying of malnutrition, surrender was the only option to save their troops, i had a old Italian man living next to when i was a kid, he served in North Africa, when he gave himself up he weighed just over 45 kilos and on the edge of death.

Although i have said what i would do in the same situation, i can assure i would not actually want that responsability.

v.R

 

von Rundstedt;
With all due respect to everyone that has posted. How would any of you armchair generals have handled the situation.

Monty; did what he did, he was slow and annoyingly methodical, but he got results, he won battles.

He managed to advance in such slow motion, that the Africa Corps was able to receive reinforcements (Especially at Tunis) set up several defensive lines incl. even counterattacks which costs thousands of allied soldiers there life instead of finishing off a retreating and beaten Army with no material immediately after El Alamein.

Patton; arrogant, and slap happy, but he won battles.

Yes he did. So what would speak then against him?

Paulus; failed in Stalingrad, but like true officer he followed orders, he was promised things that others could not deliver, he was sold out, left to rot.

He was a General even a Field Marshall who’s responsibilities need to go far beyond simple obedience towards orders then those of a private or captain. Rommel was promised things that others constantly never delivered, he was sold out, left to rot, but he did not lead the AC into Tobruk or Tunis to be encircled and starved off, and to refuse a breakout which other Generals despite Hitler’s orders nevertheless conducted by an offensive towards Stalingrad. (General Hoth).

What about the Soviets Generals that were defeated and captured in the cauldron battles early on in Operation Barbarossa were they failures or the result of Stalin's costly purging of the officer corps prior to WW2.

They were defeated by the orders given to them and because their German counterparts were the better tacticians.

Or the Italian Generals that come under constant slagging, i know in some cases that the Italians were starving and dying of malnutrition, surrender was the only option to save their troops, i had a old Italian man living next to when i was a kid, he served in North Africa, when he gave himself up he weighed just over 45 kilos and on the edge of death.

I am sure one will find starved soldiers in any army from Russia to Africa to Burma. But they do not represent a majority within the occurrences of ww2. The Italians in majority simply did not posses a fighting spirit or a true military leadership in regards to tactics and strategy.

Although i have said what i would do in the same situation, i can assure i would not actually want that responsability.

As for my part I would have loved to be in Paulus boots, doing the same move that Hausser did or Sepp Dietrich – retreat and win back - or at least hold the line instead of wasting 250 000 men. And having saved 250,000 men and the frontline, I would not have been afraid to face Hitler or a court martial.

Regards​

Kruska​

 

Ya know i made a thread about dudes just like you... and if your such an expert on strategy and tactics are you a veteran or ya just read about it?

 

Hmmm... sending false information to a colleague in battle ... that's really wrong. And you're right, Kakuta's action ranks up as among the worst performance for any general or admiral for that matter.
I can't help but think that this late in the war the Japanese commanders were still withholding critical info. Something like that happened in Midway. The Japanese Navy didn't tell the Army commanders what actually happened. And to think that Kakuta and Ozawa were both in their Navy, Kakuta's action is really ... I'm at a loss for a word to describe what he did. Maybe he was trying to look good at the expense of somebody else?

 

Patton claimed in his famous General Order Number 98, issued the day after the end of the war, that his Third Army 'had advanced further in less time than any other army in history'-just over 1,300miles in 281 days.

He was wrong

Monty and his Eighth Army advanced from El Alamein to Tunis, a distance of 1,850 miles, in 201 days.

So Monty holds the record for 'advancing further in less time than any other army in history'

Not bad for a slow and methodical general

 

I Don't give Monty any credit for that, at that stage of the war the Germans could see no future in holding Libya, especially with the Allies behind them. Monty made so many blunders that it was a wonder Churchill put up with him, I suspect Alanbrooke put in a lot of good words for him, when I have time I will itemise his errors for you, and there heaps.

 

Indeed they were so fed up with him... They made him the commander of all the Allied ground forces for Operation Overlord, the most important military operation of the Western allies in WW2

 

It's clear you haven't studied the war in Burma to make such absurd statements as these.

As for the other suggestions ... ...

I agree that Clark was frightful - even dangerous. Thankfully Goering was also.

My vote for the worst however goes to MacArthur. Arrogant to an extreme and self opinionated. He further demonstrated his failings in Korea. I very nearly said Pershing instead. But he wasn't WW2.

Montgomery was of course arguably the finest commander of WW2 with Patton a close second.

 

Could you care to develop your line of reqasoning? Just "It is because say it is" may be enough for you, but it leaves the rest of us in the dry...

 

C'mon Mike, you know full well that beside a handful of members here that "saw the elephant" all the rest starting by myself are back-seat drivers here, armchair generals on good days

 

Gotta go with Za, I doubt anyone on this forum would ever make a general (myself included, though I am going to do my best to prove or disprove that one ) all the same half the fun is to look at historical situations and criticise them with any amount of hindsight. It's an interesting occupation to say the least.

Devilsadvocate, one thing you seem to ignore is that the objective of the British in the East as far as I understand was to protect India (not sure what you mean about Vs. The Indians, that is very complicated but if you talk to Indians who were alive in those days you might learn a thing or two about how anti-British they were) and this they achieved with minimal resources and a lot of guts. They weren't called the 'forgotten army' for nothing.

Then again, I'm biased, I've been to Sandhurst where Slim is hero worshipped like few others, but hey, what do they know?

 

Can someone please explain how Monty who won all his battles except for one minor defeat (which didn't affect the outcome of the war) can be classed as the worst general of WW2 ??????

 

If Montgomery had been listened to, the Allies would have reached Berlin first. Post war Europe and the world would have been a very different place.

 

Disastrous Dieppe, Did you know the plan's for it were drawn up by Monty.
1st El Alamein, Monty used Auckinleck's plans to halt Rommel, then called them his plans.
2nd El Alemein, Bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, a 3 to 1 advantage, Rommel had very few tanks and little fuel, he would have been forced to retire anyway when the Allies landed in North Africa. He took 12 day's to shift Rommel and then was to slow to catch him, blamed the rain.
Sicily. It cannot be said that he did a good job there, except antagonise the Yanks, he was an expert at that.
Italy. Why did he have the Royal Navy bombard an undefended coast before landing the troops, he then had his army crawl up towards Salerno despite Alexandra's urging speed to help the beleaguered bridgehead.
D Day , Wasn't he supposed to take Caen, well 3 weeks later he did, well done Monty. All his offenses failed to send the enemy reeling, he couldn't even close the Falaise gap.
Antwerp, He got there, but couldn't use the port because he didn't go far enough to trap the 15Th army and he forgot the Scheldt estury needed clearing.
Arnhem. Monty was warned of the Gerry panzer divs in the area, but did he inform the airborne commanders? Horrocks guards tanks had to advance 60 miles on one defended road, an elevated one in places, a German gunners dream come true.
The Ardennes, Monty said it was his most interesting battle and wanted to take all the credit from the Americans, Fact is he wanted Hodge's to withdraw to tidy up the line he said, needless to say Hodge's refused. It was an American victory, the British only managed to fire a few shots.
The Reichswald, A stupid place to fight for, mud and tanks don't mix, I think there was a better opportunity elsewhere, and what did it gain?
Crossing the Rhine. What a build up, what a lot of fanfare, Patton crossed it with no trouble, I admit it was not very wide at his choice of crossing.
I will not go into the blunders he made when he was Chief of the Imperial General Staff, just ask Bill Slim who succeeded him.
I do hope I havn't bored you all? I must admit that during the war I was a teenager and probably thought the sun shone out of Monty's fundamental orifice, Now Ive been educated and know better.

 

Unfortunately this is true. But thats what you get when questions like this are asked. I have said this many times and try to stay away from them LOL. Now this thread is supposed to be who you consider the "Worst General" of the war. NOT who you don't like as a General. And IMO is there really just ONE?? There were quite a few that should not have reached the rank of General.

 

Here is a good canditate for ONE of the "Worst". Lloyd R. Fredendall. Here are a couple of good examples of what others think of him. I thoroughly agree with the second quote.

"On the American side, Lloyd R. Fredendall. His staff disliked him, the British hated him, he splintered his divisions, and he went into some kind of trance when things fell apart at Kasserine. He lost men and equipment when the Allies could not afford it, and gave the U.S. fighting man a bad name among the British ("How Green Was My Ally") that took a long time to erase.

His punishment? A promotion and a ticket home to a hero's welcome."

"Agreed. You'd have to look long and hard to find a more incompetant General than Fredenhall. Before Kasserine Pass he forced all of his Combat Engineers to build a massive, bomb-proof, underground command and control complex for he and his staff. Instead of pursuing and encouraging mobile warfare, he tried to dig in to wage static warfare, ala' WWI on the Western Front. Rommel quickly beat him stupid at Kasserine Pass and sent him packing, leaving Patton to take over."

Worst WW2 General - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History