Dictators as (ineffective) micromanagers

The tendency to meddle into details better left to subordinates is generally deemed to be a big failing in a leader. and is a nearly irresistible temptation for a megalomaniac.
I am attempting to collect instances of ww2 dictators meddling in the military production choices, the instances where they went over the heads of the generals in the conduct of operations deserves a different list.

So a for start:

Hitler: pushing the Me 262 as a bomber.
Hitler: forbidding any further mention of assault rifles so to continue production the short cartrige weapon was renamed as MachinePistole (MP44)
Hitler: asking for an armoured ram to be developed on the Porshe Tiger chassis (AFAIK only woodem mockups were actually built).
Hitler: various flamethrower versions of tanks descended from his personal requests, including a Tiger based one that never saw light, generally the troops didn't want anything to do with them and converted them back to gun tanks ASAP.
Stalin: Pushing for more and more IL2 production, so effectively killing the Mig series of fighters as they would have competed for engine production.
Stalin: Strongly opposing the multi turret tank concept during the 1939 evaluations of future heavy tank designs,the end result was the KV series that only had one turret.

AFAIK Mussolini was less prone to micromanagment, but IMO by 1940 he was completely out of touch with the reality of Italian armed forces.

 

Old Winston was of a mind to interfere at the micro level.....but I suppose Brooke and the war cabinet fielded him superbly at times.

 

http://air-boyne.com/messerschmitt-me-262-goering-was-the-bad-guy-not-hitler/

A fairly good case I've heard before.

 

It was not just the World War II dictators either.

FDR essentially forced the B-29 into action in the CBI well before the aircraft was ready for combat, this led to the loss of many B-29 all or some of their crews.

 

Kim Jong-Il looking at things

...

Stalin eventually learnt the art of delegation to a fairly decent degree (in Military matters).
Never relinquished the usefulness of fear to someone in his position, but better at giving qualified subordinates reign in specialist areas - not the micro-manager Adolf often wanted to be.

 

Let us not forget good ol' Tojo who, along with his army cronies, totally distorted the Bushido Code, took his army into a fight with the USA armed with weapons that were obsolescent and/or just plain pitiful, and totally discounted the effects of superior quantity and quality that was arrayed against him.

 

Yes but was he a micromanager? Japanese production was badly hampered by the need of havig a "navy version" and an "army version" of everything and some rather poor weapons choices that were possibly never corrected as criticism was not encouraged but that's not micromanagment.

 

In reguards to Japan I have begun to suspect that she was unprepared because she spent too much time obsessing on the future conflict with the west. What I mean is that they were continually trying one off types that was meant to be the ultimate weapon, yet all too often proved vulnerable in some way or not to meet the requirements.

 

Are you saying this is a bad thing? The T35 was a pile of scrap and the T28 little better. Whilst the KV2 was a bit of a disaster the KV1 and KV85 were good tanks.

 

IIRC, Stalin didn't "strongly oppose" the multi-turreted tanks - in fact, he did approve the construction of the two prototypes(T-100 & SMK), but Stalin did question the use of such large tanks. What did the multi-turreted prototypes in, was their poor performance during testing & in the brief war with Finland. The SMK hit a Finnish mine and was immobilized, the Soviets were unable to recover the "beast" until after the war had ended, and even then, it had to be broken down and sent back to the Soviet Union in pieces.

I wouldn't say the KV-1 was a "good" tank, but it was "acceptable" early in the war. The only really good thing about the KV-1 was that it lead to the IS series of Soviet heavy tanks.

 

IIRC the KV much more than the T34 where a thorn in the side of the Germans during Barbarossa, there are multiple episodes of a single KV requiring an inordinate amount of resources to destroy as it's thick all round armour turned iit into a quite effective small fort as long as the crew's morale held. The T34 had less chance to break down but once it did it could destroyed by a side or rear hit. Given that the lack of coordination and trainig made effective mass use of tanks rare in 1941 the KV showed to advantage, once they did get a grip on tank doctrine a vehicle that was likely to loose 50% of strength on the approach march became a lot less useful.

Stalin breaking off a turret of a wooden mockup and exclaiming "why turn a tank into a department store" thus reducing the T100 to "just" two instead of the original five looks "violent opposition" to me
He then apparently went on to support "laminated armour" based on a report from a veteran from Spain about how to make plates thicher than 60mm (this looks strange as no tank I know of used in the civil war came even close to having 60mm plates)..

 

I'll stand up for the KV too.
Excellent machine for the period.

I would say more on this and Stalin's lack of armour development micro-management compared to Adolf, but am currently sat on a roof, and it's raining.

Tojo?
Irrelevant to this thread, surely?
A puppet-king with great symbolic power, but very little of the Temporal variety.

 

VP are you sure? Tojo not Hiro Hito !

 

Hitler's lack of interest on a four engine bomber project or nuclear research
Hitler's famous "No Retreat" order after he took personal command of OKW and sacking Brauchtisch
Hitler's insistance for controlling sometimes even local unit movements especially in Eastern Front and Battle of Normandy.

 

Also wasn't an element of Hitler's interfering down to the fact that he ordered the PzIII to be upgraded to the 50mm L/60 but the Army ignored him and went with the L/42. Then on his birthday parade he spotted the shorter gunned PIII's and was not best pleased (he was also right as the L/60 was a far better gun). After this point he kept a most closer eye on production matters.

 

You wouldn't if it was heading straight for you..

More importantly did you save the cat...Do you want us to phone the brigade..or are you feeling slightly British and not wanting to cause a fuss..

And still you have time to worry about Tojo's reputation...I'd be more worried about the neighbours myself..

 

I'm not sure that either Tojo or Hirohito actually are good fits for the defintion of "dictator". From my understanding Japan was ruled by a council where Tojo was the first of equals (and lost that position before the end of the war) while Hirohito was outside the council and had little to do and indeed little influence on day to day matters. Because of the "council" nature of Japan's government Tojo had little to do with detailed production decisions at least for the navy. Once they got their budget they expected the Army to keep their noses out of how it was spent and visa versa. Toko being Army may have had more influence there but even there I don't think he could "dictate" such decisions.

 

Tojo was fired after the fall of Saipan

 

More important is if these decisions were wrong or right .
If they were wrong, I amsure than one easily can find exemples of decisions that were right .

 

Hitler's lack of interest on a four engine bomber project or nuclear research
Hitler's famous "No Retreat" order after he took personal command of OKW and sacking Brauchtisch
Hitler's insistance for controlling sometimes even local unit movements especially in Eastern Front and Battle of Normandy.




Are these decisions wrong ?