Worst military commanders in history

[Ea$y-8]

My choices are...

Arthur Percival - the british general in WWII who lost Malaya and the "strongest fortress on earth" Singapore

Joe Hooker- the moron who could not defeat Lee's Army of Northern Virginia which had only 60,000 men with his 130,000 man Army of the Potomac

Ernst Busch- German Field Mashial who lost Heeresgruppe Mitte (Army Group Center) When Georgi Zhukov launched Operation Bagration and lost more men than the Red Army (this was EXTREMELY rare)

Alexander Samsonov and Pavel Rennenkampf who lost the Russian the 1st and 2nd Armies to the German 8th Army.

[Lokos]

Ernst Busch- German Field Mashial who lost Heeresgruppe Mitte (Army Group Center) When Georgi Zhukov launched Operation Bagration and lost more men than the Red Army (this was EXTREMELY rare)

Not that rare after mid-1944, actually. And, to be fair to Herr Busch, very few German commanders could have done a single thing to halt or alter significantly the course of the Byelorussian Operation. The Soviets had planned too well, trained exceedingly well and struck at the appropriate time and place(s). In fact, the Operation would have been a brilliant strategic success (as opposed to a merely 'very good' one) had the offensive been halted after the 2nd or 3rd week. Letting it run into August, as it did, was a terrible idea. Most (disproportionate majority) Soviet casualties were incurred after the end of the 2nd week, because the offensive was TOO successful. Objectives were reached quicker and easier than envisaged by Soviet planners, so they just... kept going. Eventually, they outpaced supply lines, the infrastructure broke down, and they were left facing fresh German formations with battle weary units.


Alexander Samsonov and Pavel Rennenkampf who lost the Russian the 1st and 2nd Armies to the German 8th Army.

Individually, they were not terrible commanders. However, their insane lack of co-operation and synchronisation led to the defeat in detail of both their armies. Certainly on the list of 'bad' commanders, in any case.

For my part, I would nominate the following:

1) I. V. Stalin
2) Mekhlis

Well, for the Soviets in WW2, in any case.

Lokos

[DeathForSale]

Hans Guderian

[Lokos]

Why Guderian?

He was a reasonable commander, IMHO. Theoretically, he was an extremely good operational artist. On par with Tukhachevksy, in any case.

Is there anything specific that makes you think he was particularly bad?

Lokos

[DeathForSale]

Dang, I was hoping some a military buff like myself would freak out and be like "Are you freaking kidding me, Guderian?!?!" Oh well just joking!

Uhmm how about Goering, he made two reverse mistakes during the Battle for Britian in 1941, the Germans could have had England and one the war.

[gadzook]

All of these were awful:

Gerd von Rundstedt
Zeljko Raznjatovic
Hideki Tojo
Ratko Mladic
Dusan Tadic
Milan Martic
Shimada Shigeturo
Veselin Sljivancanin
Wilhelm Keitel
Miroslav Radic
Zdravko Govedarica
Dusko Sikirica

[Lokos]

Ratko Mladic

? He never lost a battle he participated in.


Milan Martic

What is your criticism of his abilities?


Dusan Tadic

And his?


Miroslav Radic

And his?


Hideki Tojo

?? What the?

***

Why must every post of yours be one with an agenda?

Get over it.

Lokos

[Lokos]

Uhmm how about Goering, he made two reverse mistakes during the Battle for Britian in 1941, the Germans could have had England and one the war.

Can't really blame him for the BoB - it was Hitler who instructed the shift in emphasis on English cities following the bombing of Berlin. But Goering does deserve special attention for claiming that the Luftwaffe could bring in more than 300 tonnes of supplies into Stalingrad on a daily basis...

And let's not even get into his career as a ground pounder 'general'!

Lokos

[DeathForSale]

All of these were awful:

Gerd von Rundstedt
Zeljko Raznjatovic
Hideki Tojo
Ratko Mladic
Dusan Tadic
Milan Martic
Shimada Shigeturo
Veselin Sljivancanin
Wilhelm Keitel
Miroslav Radic
Zdravko Govedarica
Dusko Sikirica
You're kidding right? Even Arkan who was a criminal was a good motivator of his troops and an all right platoon to company level leader.

[Minardiau]

Goering virtually invented air combat as we see it. And played a large part in the development of Blitzkreig.

Admiral Jellico would have to be in the "only average" section. Failing to destroy the German High Seas Fleet was a huge mistake.

[Mr.K]

Pavel Gratchev with his stupid assault on Grozny during the 94-96 war

[JoaMei]

Adolf Hitler....

[Kilgor]

Goering virtually invented air combat as we see it. And played a large part in the development of Blitzkreig.

Admiral Jellico would have to be in the "only average" section. Failing to destroy the German High Seas Fleet was a huge mistake.


Errr, I dont think so.

I would also vote goering as one of the worst commanders. Taking the bombers off pounding the airfields to the city didnt help, but his firm instruction to make the escort fighters stay very close to the bombers was a very bad move. Also if the some of the german generals did stand up to hitler and tell him it was a bad movie to switch from bombing the airfields (which goering should have) it might have changed BOB.

[dogboon]

War nerds. :)

[James]

Douglas Haig

[Flagg]

I'm going to choose just about every field marshall/theatre commander on either side in WWI.

The senseless and staggering losses where an entire generation of soldiers were slaughtered in a poison gas laced muddy hell based on repetitively ineffective and stale tactics.

Maybe if they had led from the front they would have changed their tune....or maybe just died....at least their replacements couldn't possibly have managed to get any more of their own troops killed even if they tried.

[fingon]

Goering virtually invented air combat as we see it. And played a large part in the development of Blitzkreig.


Maybe, but Goering also ordered his bombers attack against cities when Luftwaffe should have concentrated on destroying what was left of RAF.
BoB, was won by the Brittish 'cause they had then time to resupply and to rest between the raids(few massive ones per day, when attacking the cities)

[Kitsune]

Definitely this guy:

[black templar]

How about pak general Niazi who lost East Pakistan. Before losing his troops killed between 3,00,000 to 3 million civilians and mass rape of around 200,000to 4,00,000 women. East pakistan became Bangladesh. (got numbers from wikipedia-1971 india pakistan war)

[Asheren]

Adolf Hitler....

Nah he wasn't a bad leader in the beginning. But later form Barbarossa i must say his interventions and ideas were terrible for german army. Starting barbarossa before invading england were a huge mistake. They could easly cross la manche even without destroying english fleet. Lufftwaffe was able to
sink any warship trying to interupt crossing operation.

[Atlantic Friend]

General Maurice Gamelin (C-in-C, French Army, 1939)
General Maxime Weygand (C-in-C, French Army, 1940)
Mexican General Santa Ana

[rafaelcb]

Myself....

[Blarney]

McClellan, his inability to act early during the peninsulla campaign prolonged the war, he was a beloved commander cause of his mens cowardice. If only they had taken Richmond before the seven days battles.

Montgomery at the beginning of the war. He screwed up royally. His Market Garden campaign and Dunkirk got a lot of guys killed. Had it not been for the Americans later on, England may well ahve fallen.

James Longstreet, personally I loved his tactics, but he never had the chance really to operate. *****sburg was a drastic failer not only in part of Lee, but he never acted in a manner that would have helped. I believe he was the major case of the southern loss at *****sburg

the TL who ordered Stonewall Jackson to be fired upon...what a dip****....he killed a great man.

[Minardiau]

I'm going to put Churchill in this to.

As 1st Lord of the Adminralty and as PM he was imcompetant.

[Fenna]

Montgomery at the beginning of the war. He screwed up royally. His Market Garden campaign and Dunkirk got a lot of guys killed. Had it not been for the Americans later on, England may well ahve fallen.



You must be confused. Market Garden was in Autumn 1944, the Dunkirk evacuation was completed on 4th June 1940. Market Garden failed yes, but I don't know how you can say Dunkirk got a lot of guys killed. The evacuation from Dunkirk is generally known as a successful evacuation in hat 330,000 soldiers were successfully rescued. Montgomery was not in charge of Dunkirk so you can't really blame him for that.
Please explain what you mean by England might have fallen had it not been for the Americans later on? Germany was in its best position to invade Britain from Summer 1940 to Spring 1941 (excluding Winter), but Hitler instead chose to concentrate on attacking the Soviet Union - this was nothing to do with America.

[Beppo]

[Johnny_H]

man im sorry I rarely ever speak down on anyone on this forum

But some of you need to start cracking books open.

My nomination Was responcible for one of Canada's greatest achievments, the certainty that Canadian troops in the First world war would stay together as a "Canadian Force" and not be rotated in with British units. However his mistakes after this achievement over shadow entirely.

Mr.Sam Hughes
Here are some of his blunders


Although Hughes was given due credit for overseeing the prompt recruitment, training and despatch of forces for active duty, he nevertheless came under fire for his particular insistence upon local sourcing of war material. In addition to ignoring evidence that his beloved Ross rifle was prone to locking under rapid-fire trench conditions he was accused of supplying his force with leaky boots and poorly performing trench equipment. Munitions production was deemed substandard and there were widespread accusations of corruption surrounding its production.

Now that was taken from http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/hughes_sam.htm

It is kind of a understatement, First of all the Ross Rifle was one of the biggest military blunders in Canadian history. These rifles hardley ever worked in the rugged trench muck ridden battlefield, he was advised to go with the Enfield. He refused this because he had local interests to profit from with the Ross's Success. This rifle jammed, locked up, and over all didnt work. Although the Ross had a excellent reputation under perfect conditions and was a prized asset to a few snipers of the war. It was unfit even befor it entered service with the CEF.

In addition to that he had Canadian uniforms made that werent just "Leaky boots" but men were reported as having thier uniforms literally disintigrate and fall apart while they were wearing them. ( Pierre Bertons Vimy and Marching as to War discuss this in great detail ).

So that is my choice here is the he defenitly did some good. Seeing that the Canadian troops stayed together, he oversaw the construction of "Camp Valcartier" in three weeks, this camp would go on to train hundreds of thousends of men in both WWI and WWII.

His irrational behavior, insistance on old school military discipline IE making soldiers fresh off the front use R&R time to put on parades for himself and other political visitors, and his complete disregard for the authority of the then Prime Minister Robert Borden ( Canada's best PM of the 20century IMO ) make him my

Worst Military Leader Candidate!

Other runner up would be
Lt-General The Rt. Hon. Lord Chelmsford - Who lead a British corps into Zulu land in 1979 to divid his forces leaving 800 british regulars and 400 native soldiers with thier backs to a mountain with passes so mixed and hazardous a withdrawl from a numerically supirior and highly disciplined force was impossible. I am of course reffering to Islandhwana were these men were all but kiled to the last man. All be it there were Zulu's numbering in the 10's of thousends. The british techically had the means to defeat them but failed to take accurate defensive measures because "They werent facing a European enemy with guns"... consequently they were massacred.

[ed316]

King George the III, and it's a good thing

[Sten3]

Konnrad Hötzendorf (AUT) 1914 -1918

[California Joe]

I agree with McCLellan. By all accounts an absolutely brilliant man, I believe he went to West Point at 16. But he was an unbearably cautious and slow field commander. An absolute clusterf*ck.

[Benny]

The Italian commander at the Battle of Adowa (can't remember his name), besides many other inept or simply unlucky commanders.

Os some cases, it's the politicians fault, when choosing a incompetent commander, or by forcing a decent general to fight against common military sense.

Sometimes, it's just wars that nations didn't want to fight but where neverthless forced to.

There are so many different combinations for defeat. I guess we must chose someone who had a good chance to command and fight properly or decently, but failed to do so by simply being incompetent.

Gamelin is also a good choice.

There are so many candidates throughout history that it's difficult to elect the worse.

Benny

[ironcross6]

General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower

ok, going to make some people mad here. but i thought to throw out a guy with a great rep possibly not deserved:

his broad front strategy reflected a lack of courage and understanding of manuver warfare. the idea of all armies advancing abreast and in line violates several principals of war (mass and concentration, decisive point) and clearly prolonged the war. His utter failure to close the Falaise gap let the Whermatch lick its wounds and reconstitue. he sadly missed several chances to finish the war quickly.

Finishing the war would have spared massive casaulties on both side plus german civilians through strategic bombing. also the holocoust ramps UP in the final year of the war, it wasnt a constant rate they pushed up the killing as the allies closed in. this could have been reduced by concentrating forces under Patton or Monty and breaking through to end the war.

a supreme act of courage at D-day but miserable battlefield performance.

[California Joe]

The same could be said of George Washington as a battlefield commander. He lost most of his battles. His great skill seemed to be keeping the Army together as a viable entity by sheer force of will and a charismatic personality.

[Atlantic Friend]

There are so many different combinations for defeat. I guess we must chose someone who had a good chance to command and fight properly or decently, but failed to do so by simply being incompetent.

Gamelin is also a good choice.

There are so many candidates throughout history that it's difficult to elect the worse.

Benny

He would definitely my candidate for this Raspberry award. Won't fight, won't think, won't budge. Only resigns to avoid assuming responsibility for failure. Survives the war and writes self-serving memoirs which give the impression there never was a World war.

But most of all, I hate Gamelin because he did his best to crush de Gaulle's career and ideas. Here we have a Commander in Chief that never wants to fight the enemy, but is ready to destroy his comrades-in-arms.

[Minardiau]

I'll list the points why I rate Churchill so poorly.

1. Was the architect of Gallipoli

2. Was the architect of Norwary

3. Was the architect of Dieppe

4. Refused to release Australian forces from Africa and the UK despite Australia only having something like 20 odd thousend troops to defend itself with.

5. Refused to release the RAAF from English duty for the same reason. 20,000 RAAF personal with Australian owned aircraft could of maid alot of difference in the early part of the Pacific Campaign without adversly affecting the war in Europe. Which by this time the BoB had already concluded. Imagine modern Spitfires, Lancasters in use in early 42.

6. Whilst the above is happening had the hide to request even more Australian forces to Europe.

7. Failed to back his words with actions. IE sending of a British force of 2 carriers 7 Battleships in the event of Japanese war in the Pacific.

8. At every available opportunity delayed Australia from purchasing, building or building up our own forces to combat the Japanese.

9. Sent an Australian Cruiser to the Carribean at the outbreak of war against Japan. WTF? Australia is facing invasion so he orders the RN to send an Australian ship to a point in the globe that you couldent further away from Australia

10. Publically stated that Australia's contribution to the war should be restricted to providing troops and food for the war in Europe at the expense of Australia. He actually wanted Australia to let the Japanese land in Australia.

[AirCommando]

Defintely SS Oberführer Oskar Dirlewanger,

leader of the Sonderkommando Dirlewanger, a SS storm unit composed by only SS criminals, sadist, child abuser and other freaks.
The higher SS command accused him for war atrocities. (!!!!!)
Suposed death in 1945, some belived that he survived in Egypt as a security guard for Nasser.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger

[sethen]

HA!!! I knew that one was coming!:)

[Kilgor]

My vote for the worst of all time would have to go to Hitler though, (and his nodding donkeys who did little to protest against crazy decisions).

[Kitsune]

Much of Germany's predicament came from its unfortunate geographical position, though. Both WWI and WWII happened in times where the Great Powers of the world were merciless Imperialists who did not hesitate to use open warfare to gain power or to cling to whatever they had gained as unfairly sized their acquired share may have been.

The problem of Germany was its placing in the middle of things, so to speak. In other words, would WWI or WWII have been computergames, where the roles of the various Great Powers could be taken over by players, the part of Germany would be expert level. Compared to this, playing the USA would be for rookies. Super large economy, ideal placement far away from any danger. Russia, France and Britain, even Japan, fall somewhere in between as far as difficulty is concerned.

So, if one wants to evealuate Hitler's stupidity, one should take that into account. Humanitarian concerns aside, as far as simple power is concerned, he played it not so badly. At a certain time he even came close to winning. And he got farther than anyone would have suspected in the thirties, that is for sure.

If one compares him to to Stalin, the first may be to rate the latter one as the better player. And it's not entirely wrong, as far as politics goes, Stalin was as calculating, insididous and patient as they come. A better long range planner than Hitler. But he had his shortcomings in the military field, where his decisions where too often disastrous, whereas Hitler showed at least flashes of brilliance here. In any case, their starting points were different: it's at least doubtful wether Stalin would have done better ruling held down post WWI Germany, the favorite punching ball/rival of the France and Britain.
And as far as the Germany's well-being is concerned...considering Stalin's ruling style I do not know wether it would be that much better off, today.

[Lokos]

Before another person condemns Hitler for his 'crazy military decisions', consider:

1) It was Hitler who elected, modified and ratified the plans for the war in France, Poland, Yugoslavia and Norway. In truth, the Prussian officer elite was not so forward thinking as some here would claim.

2) Hitler nurtured Generals who were bold, decisive and audaciously inventive. The cautionary portion of the General Staff was put on the back foot.

In short: Hitler was at the helm and was responsible for both incredible victories and disastrous defeats. So was Napoleon. But nobody would say Napoleon was a 'bad' military commander. Whenever one inquiries 'What makes Hitler a bad military commander?', invariably the response is 'He ordered the holding of "Fortress Cities" to the last man" and "He turned Guderian's thrust against Moscow into the Ukraine to finish off Kiev". Well, that's all good and well. But:

1) The Fortress City tactic was not as absurd as some may think. In the winter of '41, the hedgehog defence fortifications Hitler ordered saved AGC from near total destruction. This was when 'wiser' generals were urging a general retreat - one that very easily could have broken down into a rout. I would attribute the failure of the Fortress City tactic more to Hitler's underestimation of Soviet forces, Soviet offensive capability and the quality of the Soviet general officers. Many have done this throughout history - and few were labelled 'bad' generals because of it.

2) The thrust against Kiev was absolutely necessary - which is something most people refuse to understand. What if Kirponos began a counter offensive against Guderian's flank at the very moment of the Moscow decision? It could have resulted in a greater disaster than anything envisaged hitherto. If the Soviets cut German supply lines for three or four days, the armored spearheads of the AGC would have ground to a halt. They'd effectively be out of the war. And we are talking about most of the Wehrmacht's panzer divisions.

Keep these things in mind when talking about Hitler's incapacity. The man was a monster, but calling him an 'idiot' seems to denigrate ordinary Germans who were quite cowed and very much so out manoeuvred by this 'idiot'. He was a very clever individual, of that have no doubt.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

Lokos, even you should know that as the war went on, Hitler became more paranoid and obessed that his generals were nothing but cowards and backstabbers. Yes, the german army had many successess early on when Hitlers meddling was at its least. In the later years every decision and unit he wanted to control down to the batalion level and with disasterous results. He simply would not listen to sound advice and thought that the requirements of logistics were above a man of his status. As the war progressed, anyone who disagreed with him was fired, and "Yes" men were brought in.

I dont ever doublt Hitlers skill as a Head of state, and international politican and con-man, but he definately wasnt a sound commander.

And if i was to give a example of disasterous leadership, it would be ardennes Offensive. A totally irresponsible roll of the dice sacrificing lives, machine and fuel that hitler did not have enough of, when they could have pulled behind the rhine and made life really hard for the western allies.

[Lokos]

Hitler became more paranoid and obessed that his generals were nothing but cowards and backstabbers.

Paranoia does not a bad military commander make.


Yes, the german army had many successess early on when Hitlers meddling was at its least

I'm sorry, I guess you didn't quite catch it in my previous post:

Hitler was THE single greatest influence on Fall Weiss and other early-war operations. Meddling at its least? Hardly.


In the later years every decision and unit he wanted to control down to the batalion level and with disasterous results.

So as his mental health deteriorated, he began making what can be considered 'bad' decisions. You're still not answering my question: WHY does this make him a 'bad military commander' intrinsically?


He simply would not listen to sound advice

Whose?


and thought that the requirements of logistics were above a man of his status.

Really? Like when, for example?


As the war progressed, anyone who disagreed with him was fired, and "Yes" men were brought in.

Men like Manstein? Or perhaps you were thinking about Guderian?

If you read the transcripts of the war councils from 1942-1945, you would see that PLENTY of people disagreed with Hitler on a regular basis. He simply chose to ignore their disagreement. And the greatest portion of decisions reached was reached by consensus.


but he definately wasnt a sound commander.

Yes, he was a terrible military commander. He was only responsible for the formation of the contemporary German officer corps, the Wehrmacht itself, the panzer formations, and numerous characteristics of the invasions of Yugoslavia, Norway, France and Poland.


And if i was to give a example of disasterous leadership, it would be ardennes Offensive.

So, in your opinion, when the Wehrmacht was successful, it was despite Hitler, and when it was not it was because of him?

LOL.


A totally irresponsible roll of the dice sacrificing lives, machine and fuel that hitler did not have enough of, when they could have pulled behind the rhine and made life really hard for the western allies.

The same principle was behind Operation Michael in 1918. A win-all-or-lose-all attempt at reestablishing a favourable strategic balance of forces, and retaking the initiative. It was the only way Germany could have kept a thread of hope for the future intact. You look at this from the view point of someone living now, with all the hindsight entailed in that. Well, hindsight IS 20/20, as they say.

Lokos

[keimo lantio]

Duhanov, A.I.Vinogradov, Zelentsov during Winter War -39 in Raate Road. Both 163. Division and 44. Division which was sent rescue 163. were annihilated.

Small scale battle in global perspective, but this battle has been one of favourite examples of "Motti" -fight i.e. how to surround the enemy and destroy it. Tactics of this battle has been tought even in West Point.

Some info, from both sides.

http://heninen.net/raatteentie/sotatapahtumat/english.htm

[roland]

Definitely Gamelin.
The defensive strategy was a bad (remain to be proven) but most of all was badly implemented.
The list of Gamelin's mistakes is impressive:
- too little and too bad troops in front of the Ardennes,
- too many troops on the Maginot line,
- attack from good well defended position in FRance to unprepared position in Belgium,
- too slow to realize the danger of the Ardennes breakthrough,
- no strategic reserves,
- tanks sprayed as "1000 groups of 3 instead of 3 groups of 1000",
- and so on ...

What's amasing too is how the politicians could have given the command of a so incompetent idiot.

Weygan ? proved a good soldier before WWII in the Levant. When he replaced Gamelin that was already too late.

[DaMasta!]

Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov

Most overrated commander in history of war.

[JoaMei]

Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov

Most overrated commander in history of war.

And why? YSou should give some reasons at least.

[DaMasta!]

Second Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive (codenamed Operation Mars).
One of biggest bloodbaths in WWII (if not the biggest),
soviet losses: 500,000 men and 1,705 tanks
German losses: 40,000 men.

Battle of Berlin.
Soviet losses:
81,000 dead and missing (including 2800 Polish), 280,000 wounded and sick
1,997 armoured vehicles
2,108 artillery pieces
917 aircraft
Pointless casualties, that could be easly avioded.

[JoaMei]

Second Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive (codenamed Operation Mars).
One of biggest bloodbaths in WWII (if not the biggest),
soviet losses: 500,000 men and 1,705 tanks
German losses: 40,000 men.

Battle of Berlin.
Soviet losses:
81,000 dead and missing (including 2800 Polish), 280,000 wounded and sick
1,997 armoured vehicles
2,108 artillery pieces
917 aircraft
Pointless casualties, that could be easly avioded.

Depends, his main goal was to be in Berlin before the western allies. Nearly all soviet generals and Stalin didnt care about reducing losses, it was no priority for them.
They already knew the plans of the western allies to reintegrate Germany.

[Ea$y-8]

For what reason do you put him here?

[Bryson C]

For what reason do you put him here?


Well, Bush is not a general, or a military planner, but in front of the ‘Mission accomplished” banner, he said major combat operations were over. Yet most US causalities have been after major combat operations. Architects of the Iraq war underestimated the insurgency.

[DeathForSale]

Zhukov is not overrated, nor is he a particulary bad commander, Zhukov was a hammer, especially in later operations, he would use tremendous firepower and manpower to achieve objectives which could have been achieved with delicate preperations and planning, his strategic foresight was not particualry great either, he became obsessed with taking Berlin first. Although IMHO he was a very decent Marshall.

[bloddyaxe]

"King" Jörgen Jörgensen...

He was defeated by a few merchants while his "army" was drinking and having fun...

[Lokos]

Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov

Most overrated commander in history of war.

We are talking about 'worst military commanders in history', not 'most overrated' ones. Regardless of your personal view of Zhukov, the man was the 'firebrigade' of the STAVKA in 1941 and 1942. He was sent to where the 'fire was hottest', and helped straighten things out. He also destroyed the 24th and most of the 7th Japanese divisions at Khalkin Ghol in '38-'39. He may have had his failures (Mars being just about the only one), but he had NUMEROUS successes (including Stalingrad - or does that not count anymore?).

He was one of five or so of the Soviet Union's most capable strategic leaders. I have a better personal opinion of Vassilevsky, Konev, Rokossovsky, Antonov, Shapushnikov and a few others, but Zhukov is the most famous one for a reason.


Soviet losses:
81,000 dead and missing (including 2800 Polish), 280,000 wounded and sick
1,997 armoured vehicles
2,108 artillery pieces
917 aircraft
Pointless casualties, that could be easly avioded.

A couple of points:

1) Those figures are for the OVERALL Berlin Operation. This does not simply include the storming of the city, but its surrounding environs, as well. Needless to say, German casualties were correspondingly mindboggling.

2) The irrecoverable losses were more like 72,000 (including Poles), not 81,000.

3) How could they have 'easily been avoided'?


Depends, his main goal was to be in Berlin before the western allies.

No. His main goal was to be in Berlin before Konev. Stalin erased the boundary lines between their respective fronts, and let them race to the city. The WA were understood to have agreed to the Soviet investment of the Berlin 'fortress city'.


Nearly all soviet generals and Stalin didnt care about reducing losses

Wrong again. By the end of the war, STAVKA was EXTREMELY frugal with manpower. Any 'wasteage' was frowned upon. Serious cases of needless casualties were handled in quite often brutal ways.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

No. His main goal was to be in Berlin before Konev. Stalin erased the boundary lines between their respective fronts, and let them race to the city. The WA were understood to have agreed to the Soviet investment of the Berlin 'fortress city'.


Lokos


And why the race to get there ? Why did stalin play off his generals against each other to see who would be the first in berlin ? Why such the race if manpower was so precious ? Your contradicting yourself lokos.

If manpower was indeed so precious, stalin would have put the leash back on his generals and told them to stop racing each other.

You know that Stalin was paranoid that the western allies would take berlin first and steal the soviet unions rightful trophy.

[Paracaidista]

Well, Bush is not a general, or a military planner, but in front of the ‘Mission accomplished” banner, he said major combat operations were over. Yet most US causalities have been after major combat operations. Architects of the Iraq war underestimated the insurgency.


Like more this guy?

[Crassus]

Lokos, I would not hold such a high opinion about Konev. First he began his military career as a commissar and secondly he tried to put blame on Brajnsk-Vzajma catastrophy on Rokossovsky´s shoulders.

But, Rokossovsky was a real artist. Best commander Russians had.

[Lokos]

And why the race to get there ? Why did stalin play off his generals against each other to see who would be the first in berlin ? Why such the race if manpower was so precious ? Your contradicting yourself lokos.

I'd be contradicting myself if you could show that it was wasteful of manpower. Getting to Berlin quickly made sense. Each day gained was a day the Germans didn't have to further their fortification efforts and draw in more of the routing units adjacent to the city itself. But Germany's field armies were kaputt. In the cost/benefit calculation, it was decided that haste - at the price of marginally higher casualties - was preferrable to an embarassingly cautionary advance. IMHO, this was correct.

Stalin considered the German question well and truly decided by March of 1945. He had already made gestures and vague promises that the SU would strike out at Japan by August. To do this, he needed the 'Western Front' (Eastern Front to you) done with by early May at the latest. It takes a certain degree of time and effort to transfer two and a half million men across the breadth of the Soviet Union. Formations were already being pulled away to the Manchurian border by the time of the Battle of Berlin.


You know that Stalin was paranoid that the western allies would take berlin first and steal the soviet unions rightful trophy.

Since they had already agreed that this wouldn't happen, and since Truman still wanted Stalin to hit the Kwantung Army, Stalin was not particularly paranoid about the very, very slight possibility of the WA taking Berlin. Especially considering that, by the time the boundaries were erased, they were far closer to the city, in any case.

Lokos

[black templar]

Like more this guy?





Which is the gun in your photo. Cool avatar.

[Lokos]

First he began his military career as a commissar and secondly he tried to put blame on Brajnsk-Vzajma catastrophy on Rokossovsky´s shoulders.

A few points:

1) Konev was one of the few militarily apt commissars.

2) Slighting Rokossovsky's honor doesn't make Konev a bad military commander. He was one of the Soviet Union's very best tank leaders.


But, Rokossovsky was a real artist. Best commander Russians had.

I suspect you're Polish. Which makes it fair enough that you favour Rokossovsky to such a degree. I don't disagree that he was a great commander. But the best the 'Russians' (by which you mean the Soviets) had? Hardly.

Lokos

[DaMasta!]

NUMEROUS successes (including Stalingrad - or does that not count anymore?).

What successes? He wasnt even there during the battle. Stalingrad and whole
Operation Uranus was Vassilevskys success. defenetly not Zhukovs.

Khalkhin Gol was indeed Zhukovs briliant victory. First one and last one.



3) How could they have 'easily been avoided'?

April 20 Berlin was allready encirceld, no allies could get there any more. So why storm the damn city?
City was attacked by first, second and third guards tank army (thats a lot of tanks). How smart does commander have to be, to know not to attack citys with tanks? Where kids with panzerfausts can kill em (1,997 armoured vehicles destroyed).



I suspect you're Polish. Which makes it fair enough that you favour Rokossovsky to such a degree. I don't disagree that he was a great commander. But the best the 'Russians' (by which you mean the Soviets) had? Hardly.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky was Polish too, you think they like him in Poland?
Rokossovsky is more hated then liked around vistula river.


In my humble opinion best field commanders of soviet union were: Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky,Aleksandr Mikhailovich Vasilevsky and Andrey Andreyevich Vlasov

[Lokos]

What successes? He wasnt even there during the battle. Stalingrad and whole
Operation Uranus was Vassilevskys success. defenetly not Zhukovs.

Let us begin with 'what successes' he had:

- Stopping the Germans on Leningrad's southern outskirts in the autumn of '41.
- Replaced Semyon Timoshenko and directed successful defense of Moscow.
- Directed successful transfer of Siberian divisions from the Far East MD.
- January '43: Orchestrates first breakthrough of the German blockade of Leningrad
- STAVKA co-ordinator at the Battle of Kursk in '43
- Played a central role in the hugely successful Orel and other offensives that followed the Kursk defensive operation.
- Lifted siege of Leningrad in January '44.
- LED Soviet offensive effort in '44, including supervision and execution of the Byelarussian Operation (Bagration) and NUMEROUS others.
- Participated in the successful Berlin Operation.

This is a broad swathe of what he accomplished, and is not even particularly specific with the dozens of battles he conducted successfully.

And about Zhukov and Stalingrad:


In 1942 Zhukov was made Deputy Commander-in-Chief and sent to the south-western front to be in charge of the defense of Stalingrad. Under the overall command of Vasilievsky, he oversaw the encirclement and capture of the German Sixth Army in 1943

Source: Pavel N. Bobylev, Otechesvennaya istoriya (trans), no. 1, 2000, pp. 41-64

He was not there? Certainly, you're right, he was directing attacks against Rzhev, Sychevska and Vyazma during the Stalingrad Operation. But it is only Stalin himself who would take away credit from Zhukov for the planning, logistical movements and concentration of available strategic reserves that enabled the envelopment of the 6th Army:


"Contrary to Zhukov's claims, he does not have any relation to plans of liquidation of the Stalingrad group of German troops; it is known that the plan was developed and started to be implemented in winter of 1942, when Zhukov was with another front, far from Stalingrad".

Why did he do this? Simple; the same reason why he ruined Zhukov directly after the Second World War (in 1947). He was afraid of him. He was afraid that a hugely popular, victorious wartime general might be a threat to his regime.

For those who claim him a simple butcher, let us see:


Zhukov's actual career is as diverse as those opinions. Brutal disregard for the lives of his soldiers often changes to the complete opposite. Zhukov spent more time than most Soviet commanders training his troops for battle, and preparing the battle plans, which often lead to significantly lower casualty numbers compared to other Soviet commanders; for example at the Battle of Moscow in the winter of 1941 Zhukov lost 139,586 men, or 13.6% of his total strength - while a comparable operation under General Kozlov lost 39.4% of his men near Kerch. As the war went on, Zhukov's casualties were becoming even lower; while often incredibly high by any other country's standards, for the Soviet Union they were below average. At the Battle of Berlin Zhukov lost only 4.1% of his men, while Konev's forces, that faced weaker German opposition, lost 5%, and at the same time Rodion Malinovsky lost almost 8% at the battle of Budapest.


Khalkhin Gol was indeed Zhukovs briliant victory. First one and last one.

Says you and the empty orchestra behind you.


So why storm the damn city?

Did I stutter? Here is a flashback to the very post you were addressing:


Getting to Berlin quickly made sense. Each day gained was a day the Germans didn't have to further their fortification efforts and draw in more of the routing units adjacent to the city itself. But Germany's field armies were kaputt. In the cost/benefit calculation, it was decided that haste - at the price of marginally higher casualties - was preferrable to an embarassingly cautionary advance. IMHO, this was correct.

Stalin considered the German question well and truly decided by March of 1945. He had already made gestures and vague promises that the SU would strike out at Japan by August. To do this, he needed the 'Western Front' (Eastern Front to you) done with by early May at the latest. It takes a certain degree of time and effort to transfer two and a half million men across the breadth of the Soviet Union. Formations were already being pulled away to the Manchurian border by the time of the Battle of Berlin.



How smart does commander have to be, to know not to attack citys with tanks?

Apparently, extremely. Unless you can name one 'great general' that didn't use tanks in the direct fire support role, when it came to taking cities?


Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky was Polish too, you think they like him in Poland?
Rokossovsky is more hated then liked around vistula river.

Okay. Give me ONE solid reason why Rokossovsky was 'better'. ONE.


n my humble opinion best field commanders of soviet union were: Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky,Aleksandr Mikhailovich Vasilevsky and Andrey Andreyevich Vlasov

So, your picks are a) a military theorist whose only experience was in the Civil War, b) a great but ultimately unremarkable military planner and c) the man whose only significant wartime experience was losing the 2nd Shock Army in its totality?

Gee, you're definitely approaching this without an agenda. Not.

Lokos

[Catch22]

I suspect you're Polish. Which makes it fair enough that you favour Rokossovsky to such a degree.

Just on a sidenote Lokos - Konstanty Rokossowski wasn't ever too popular among us, his biography tells why. During his career (from 1949) as a minister of defence, deputy prime-minister and marshall of the army he was percieved just as a Moscow's supervisor in local government. After the breakthrough in '56 he was just withdrawn to Moscow. I doubt there are any sentiments for him among Poles, regardless of his native nationality he was Russian by practice.

[Lokos]

Fair enough. What I said still stands: 'A reason for Rokossovsky being better, please'.

Lokos

[DaMasta!]

Lokos, we can have long and rather senseless discussion here, i think its better if we just skip it.
For a long time i sheard Your point of wiev on Zhukov, but few months ago i read a book by Vladimir Rezun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov)
"Shadow of Victory" questioning the image of Georgy Zhukov. It changed my opinion on Zhukov and "Great Patriotic War". Read it and mayby it will change Yours.

[Paracaidista]

Which is the gun in your photo. Cool avatar.

Thanks. The gun is the bullpup assault rifle FN F2000 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as41-e.htm). And the avatar shows its unique way of how the cases are being expelled after firing.

[beyond_the_silence]

Pavel Gratchev with his stupid assault on Grozny during the 94-96 war

Hell yes!

121212

[Invader Zim]

Lokos, we can have long and rather senseless discussion here, i think its better if we just skip it.
For a long time i sheard Your point of wiev on Zhukov, but few months ago i read a book by Vladimir Rezun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov)
"Shadow of Victory" questioning the image of Georgy Zhukov. It changed my opinion on Zhukov and "Great Patriotic War". Read it and mayby it will change Yours.
Another victim of Rezun. This guy still makes money with the BS he writes. Unbelievable!:cantbeli:

For me the worst commander must be Douglas Haig.

[Kilgor]

I wouldnt call churchill the worst, but some of his military plans sound like they were hatched at the bottom of a scotch glass.

As much as a I admire him as a politican and figurehead, he wasnt a good commander.

[Minardiau]

I wouldnt call churchill the worst, but some of his military plans sound like they were hatched at the bottom of a scotch glass.

As much as a I admire him as a politican and figurehead, he wasnt a good commander.

You should read the book "Politics of War: Australia at War 1939-1945 From Curchill to Macarthur" by David Day

A fascinating read. In a nutshell if you were a dominion you would be pissed off with Churchill. If you were an Australian political leader you would having nothing but contempt of the man.

[Lokos]

Another victim of Rezun. This guy still makes money with the BS he writes. Unbelievable!

I know, it's sad.

Lokos

[asch]

but few months ago i read a book by Vladimir Rezun
ow, fvck!! and i almost begin to beleive you!!!! :cantbeli:
Rezun, naah...
:fork:

[GermaniaInvicta]

Adolf Hitler is the worst military commander in history, he had better sticked to writting books or even better painting post cards.

[duck]

Limited to WWII Eastern Front:

Soviet Union: Budenny, a tragic figure created by the mindless mass executions of officers. If Kirponos had been in charge of the overall Ukrainian defence the useless mass slaughter of the Red Army needn't have happened.

Germany: Paulus, an obedient, spineless lackey. Didn't clear the Donetz brigdeheads regardless of Bocks urging, was unable to isolate Stalingrad from supplies during the early phase and made catasthropic misjudgements about Red Army troop strenght and concentrations.

Btw, regarding Zhukov: Did he have political ambitions or was there another reason that Stalin cut his wings after Berlin was taken?

[Minardiau]

Actually he was put in command of the Russian forces against Japan when Russia finally came into it.

[duck]

Actually he was put in command of the Russian forces against Japan when Russia finally came into it.

Ok, so he had three more months in the spotlight before Stalin cut him off.

[Invader Zim]

Actually he was put in command of the Russian forces against Japan when Russia finally came into it.
Wrong. The commander was Vassilevsky.

[Lokos]

Duck:

Zhukov had his wings officially 'clipped' in 1947, when he was assigned as the commander of the Odessa MD - an appointment of zero strategic significance.

Lokos

[Major Maxillary]

Yeah, i'm going to agree with the Mclellan bit. the high point of his career was inventing a new saddle for Cavalry(which is still in use today). most of the others like Montgomery were bad, but not to the point that Mclellan was. Mclellan's Army was the largest in the war, and he would never commit to battle, being absolutely terrified of the enemy.

the worst generals are always the ones who hesitate constantly.

[Lokos]

most of the others like Montgomery were bad

I get frustrated by stuff like this. Why was Montgomery bad? He was methodical and cautious - but why is this 'bad'? He didn't underperform in North Africa and/or Sicily. Nor did he perform badly in W. Europe, apart from during Market Garden - an operation that, had German forces been composed of what the British thought was there, could have been very successful.

Lokos

[Major Maxillary]

I get frustrated by stuff like this. Why was Montgomery bad? He was methodical and cautious - but why is this 'bad'? He didn't underperform in North Africa and/or Sicily. Nor did he perform badly in W. Europe, apart from during Market Garden - an operation that, had German forces been composed of what the British thought was there, could have been very successful.

Lokos

you're right, he didn't underperform much of the time, but he was overly cautious. the way to win a war is to attack not let your enemy attack you.

Invincibility lies with Defense, Victory with attack.

so he was bad. not the worst, but no where near the best, either.

[Lokinator]

Napoleon...

[Kilgor]

Btw, regarding Zhukov: Did he have political ambitions or was there another reason that Stalin cut his wings after Berlin was taken?

Because Zhukov was rightfully a national hero in the soviet union, and stalin could not have any man ever come close to his cult of personality. The only reason Zhukov even lead the victory parade, was that stalin couldnt ride properly and was bucked off the white horse in rehearsal.

[walford]

McClellan, his inability to act early during the peninsulla campaign prolonged the war, he was a beloved commander cause of his mens cowardice. If only they had taken Richmond before the seven days battles.McClellan was very good at building an army and should have been left to that. I was thinking of him while watching Band of Brothers' depiction of Capt. Sobel. Good at training, poor in the field.

James Longstreet, personally I loved his tactics, but he never had the chance really to operate. *****sburg was a drastic failer not only in part of Lee, but he never acted in a manner that would have helped. I believe he was the major case of the southern loss at *****sburg.If I remember correctly, Longstreet advised that their troops be shifted to the south toward Washington so that the greater-numbered Union would be forced to abandon their superior positions. But Lee -- hoping for a demoralizing blow -- instead insisted upon pressing for battle, which was never a good tactic for the South.

The Southern generals didn't seem to understand that all they needed to do was prolong the war and inflict casualties until the North's waning resolve finally collapsed. They certainly didn't need to take territory or destroy the Union Army. Those more difficult objectives should have been reserved for the North.

Most military historians agree that there was unnecessary carnage because both sides were using mass-charge tactics [which were fine with close-range weapons] against longer-range, accurate rifles.

And yet, knowing this, the same mistakes were made again:

I'm going to choose just about every field marshall/theatre commander on either side in WWI.

The senseless and staggering losses where an entire generation of soldiers were slaughtered in a poison gas laced muddy hell based on repetitively ineffective and stale tactics.

Maybe if they had led from the front they would have changed their tune....or maybe just died....at least their replacements couldn't possibly have managed to get any more of their own troops killed even if they tried.Not only did the small arms become more accurate, the rate of fire increased dramatically. Yet similar tactics were used again -- to disastrous results.

If I remember correctly, the trench stalemates were finally broken by adopting new tactics -- rather than frontal assaults, trenches were attacked from the flanks and were infiltrated at night, but very late in the war. The huge, senseless loss of life and punitive terms of WWI made many weary of confronting aggressive evil when it arose a generation later -- and it was nearly too late.

[JeremyScott]

Coming from a Texan's perspective, hows bout General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. He lost just about every battle he ever participated in. He was a laughing joke. He lost about 3000 soldiers to 189 Texans defending a broken down old mission in San Antonio.

[ElHombre]

Coming from a Texan's perspective, hows bout General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. He lost just about every battle he ever participated in. He was a laughing joke. He lost about 3000 soldiers to 189 Texans defending a broken down old mission in San Antonio.

sorry, that number is highly inaccurate by about a factor of ten. and remember that he won the battle after taking the defenders completely by surprise. not to mention that that mission had a lot of artillery defending it (the principle reason the texians didn't want to give it up).

more accurately, santa anna wasted his victory at san antonio as well as gen. urrea's victory at goliad (captured 400 troops with a far lower cost in casualties) with a series of imbecilic operational (no hospitals for his wounded, as a result they died) and diplomatic (executed all prisoners, guaranteeing the continued support of the texian rebels by the US) decisions.

and his biggest mistake, a little soiree to san jacinto. the decision that cost him the war.

[ABNINF]

Montgomery, definately

[Atlantic Friend]

Napoleon...

Tactical genius, operational genius, strategic nightmare... We have a saying here : when all you have is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails. All Napoleon had was a fearsome army, and he tried to solve every problem with the use of force, bleeding the country white.

[walford]

Tactical genius, operational genius, strategic nightmare... We have a saying here : when all you have is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails. All Napoleon had was a fearsome army, and he tried to solve every problem with the use of force, bleeding the country white.Agreed. Napoleon's problem was he didn't have the capacity to declare victory and go home. He needed new battles to fight rather than concentrating upon consolidating his gains and securing the peace.

Contrast that with Hitler, who was utterly incompetant as a strategist or tactician. He had the tools to easily secure a worldwide Axis victory, but was an impatient micromanager who should have trusted his excellent generals and confined himself to being a motivator only.

The professional military leaders advocated a more piecemeal approach and would not have started the war until the Kriegsmarine had sufficient amphibious assault capability to conquer England -- about 1945. The Luftwaffe certainly was capable of knocking GB out of the war [but didn't because of the already discussed decision to spare the RAF in favor of hitting the cities]. But you need troops to actually seize and hold territory and they had little means to do that effectively. The Brits knew this.

And I have to throw in FDR for the strategic blunder of forming an alliance with Stalin. What he should have done instead was treated the USSR as an enemy who was at the moment fighting the same opponent. That means no help, let him tie up the NAZIs in the east, and the armies that would actually give the countries back to their people do the liberating. That would have meant no Warsaw Pact and possibly no Cold War or Korean War.

But this is all hindsight of course.

[ElHombre]

Tactical genius, operational genius, strategic nightmare... We have a saying here : when all you have is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails. All Napoleon had was a fearsome army, and he tried to solve every problem with the use of force, bleeding the country white.

i recall a story along those lines. napoleon is watching a parade of his troops. he turns to one of his marshals (talleyrand, IIRC) and says, 'see my soldiers bayonets. see how they gleam!' to which talleyrand replies, 'yes, your majesty. you can do anything with a bayonet. except sit on it.'

[Atlantic Friend]

And I have to throw in FDR for the strategic blunder of forming an alliance with Stalin. What he should have done instead was treated the USSR as an enemy who was at the moment fighting the same opponent. That means no help, let him tie up the NAZIs in the east, and the armies that would actually give the countries back to their people do the liberating. That would have meant no Warsaw Pact and possibly no Cold War or Korean War.

But this is all hindsight of course.


But wouldn't there be the risk was that Stalin could have made peace with Hitler, like he tried in november 1941, leaving the German Reich in a much, much better strategic position and ?

Not supporting Stalin in WW2 is sparing Nazi Germany a butcher bill of more than a million troops, that would live to fight or deter a US intervention in favor of Great Britain. It would also mean freeing industrial assets for the production of more naval bombers, U-Boote and other weapons for the blockade of the United Kingdom...

You don't get a Warsaw Pact, but you can end up with a Breslau Pact coercing European nations into a permanent alliance with Nazi Germany. You don't get a Korean War, but you might get a Middle-Eastern War against German troops and proxies...

[walford]

And I have to throw in FDR for the strategic blunder of forming an alliance with Stalin. What he should have done instead was treated the USSR as an enemy who was at the moment fighting the same opponent. That means no help, let him tie up the NAZIs in the east, and the armies that would actually give the countries back to their people do the liberating. That would have meant no Warsaw Pact and possibly no Cold War or Korean War.But wouldn't there be the risk was that Stalin could have made peace with Hitler, like he tried in november 1941, leaving the German Reich in a much, much better strategic position and ?

Not supporting Stalin in WW2 is sparing Nazi Germany a butcher bill of more than a million troops, that would live to fight or deter a US intervention in favor of Great Britain. It would also mean freeing industrial assets for the production of more naval bombers, U-Boote and other weapons for the blockade of the United Kingdom...

You don't get a Warsaw Pact, but you can end up with a Breslau Pact coercing European nations into a permanent alliance with Nazi Germany. You don't get a Korean War, but you might get a Middle-Eastern War against German troops and proxies...Once Hitler launched Barbarossa, there was zero possibility of peace between the two dictators. The brutality and huge loss of life of the invasion/occupation rallied the Russian people and galvanized their resolve like never before.

Germany desperately needed petroleum and the only way to get to it was through the USSR or through N Africa [which is what they should have done, but the Afrika Corps was neglected, doomed to failure even under Rommel].

Insofar as support was concerned, that could have been finessed in the form of empty rhetoric/promises and no supplies. All we needed the Russians to do was keep the NAZIs busy, but not strong enough to take territory. That was a horrible mistake, but FDR joined much of the Left in being ideologically sympathetic to the point of being unwilling to even consider Stalin's past brutality and future imperial ambitions.

I cannot stress strongly enough the difference that it would have made if the USSR came out of WWII weakened rather than strengthened. The Soviet Union may have collapsed much sooner. The PRC would not have lasted this long either. Consider all of the Third World countries that got Soviet support and the tin-pot dictators that America had to prop up in order to forestall a power vacuum. As I had stated before, history is not an inevitably positive progression.

But of course we are on a different timeline and must deal with things as they are.

[tantor]

Field Marshal Oskar Potiorek

[Atlantic Friend]

Once Hitler launched Barbarossa, there was zero possibility of peace between the two dictators. The brutality and huge loss of life of the invasion/occupation rallied the Russian people and galvanized their resolve like never before.

Er, sorry, but Stalin DID try to negotiate a quick peace with Hitler in the autumn of 1941, through the Bulgarian embassy. This was seen as a sure sign that Russia wouldn't last long by the Germans, who pressed on. But there's every sign that Stalin and the Politburo were in a state of panic before the Soviet winter counter-offensive, and the Germans would have found them ready to diplomatic overtures...


Germany desperately needed petroleum and the only way to get to it was through the USSR or through N Africa [which is what they should have done, but the Afrika Corps was neglected, doomed to failure even under Rommel].

Germany could have obtained that oil from the Middle-East or through an armistice with Stalin in late 1941... I'm sure Stalin would have thought it was a price he was willing to pay in order to stay in power in Russia.

Plus, a large part of Germany's need for oil derived from her deployment in Russia, with super-extended supply lines, large motorized units and air groups to supply. I'm no expert there, but I think a Germany freed of the burden of an extensive Russian deployment would probably have found the Central European / Russian oil sufficient to fuel its effort against the British.


Insofar as support was concerned, that could have been finessed in the form of empty rhetoric/promises and no supplies. All we needed the Russians to do was keep the NAZIs busy, but not strong enough to take territory. That was a horrible mistake, but FDR joined much of the Left in being ideologically sympathetic to the point of being unwilling to even consider Stalin's past brutality and future imperial ambitions.

But to his credit, diplomacy with a shrewd negotiator (as Molotov was) is no exact science. There's no way, given the Soviet Union "impermeability" to Western intelligence at that time, that the US or the British could have determined precisely what was needed and what was superfluous. Remember that Stalin kept blackmailing his allies with threats of separate peace throughout the conflict.


I cannot stress strongly enough the difference that it would have made if the USSR came out of WWII weakened rather than strengthened. The Soviet Union may have collapsed much sooner.

Or would have tried an all-out offensive in Europe in the late 1940s early 1950s, to try to turn out the tables. Neither the US forces in Europe nor the European forces would have lasted long.


But of course we are on a different timeline and must deal with things as they are.


But that's the interesting thing : History as it could have been... Have you ever read "Fatherland" or "SS-GB" , for example ?

[bloddyaxe]

As for alternate timelines...

What if the US hadn't joined WWI. Then might it be possible that the Central powers had made peace with the Allies in 1917, thus no revolution in Russia...
No Soviet union, no Sputnik... uh and no sattilites and no one would have bothered to go to the moon yet...

[ramy]

Cant believe no one mentioned Saddam Hussein yet. hahaha

[walford]

but Stalin DID try to negotiate a quick peace with Hitler in the autumn of 1941, through the Bulgarian embassy. This was seen as a sure sign that Russia wouldn't last long by the Germans, who pressed on. But there's every sign that Stalin and the Politburo were in a state of panic before the Soviet winter counter-offensive, and the Germans would have found them ready to diplomatic overtures..I doubt that an alliance with the West -- or lack thereof -- would have had any effect. The fact is, the Russian people were completely motivated to fight the NAZIs.

Remember, one major reason that the Bolsheviks took power was a series of humiliating defeats under the Tsar, culminating in WWI. This was still in living memory, so another negotiated peace with those who had already brutalized them on such a grand scale may have been enough to have the military AND civilian population desert him.

Germany could have obtained that oil from the Middle-East or through an armistice with Stalin in late 1941... I'm sure Stalin would have thought it was a price he was willing to pay in order to stay in power in Russia.

Plus, a large part of Germany's need for oil derived from her deployment in Russia, with super-extended supply lines, large motorized units and air groups to supply. I'm no expert there, but I think a Germany freed of the burden of an extensive Russian deployment would probably have found the Central European / Russian oil sufficient to fuel its effort against the British.
And again, a lack of Western support would not have changed this. Barbarossa was Hitler's doing. I had already addressed the fact that Hitler would have done better by leaving Russia alone and concentrating upon North Africa. But he didn't.

There's no way, given the Soviet Union "impermeability" to Western intelligence at that time, that the US or the British could have determined precisely what was needed and what was superfluous. Remember that Stalin kept blackmailing his allies with threats of separate peace throughout the conflict.There were those at the time who warned of Stalin's overt imperial ambitions. Ideological sympathy [some even romanticized the USSR] made FDR ignore such talk.

Everyone knew then why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed -- to keep each other at bay while the Germans attended to the West/Stalin built up his military. Each side knew that there was an irrepressible conflict between them, but were hoping to deal with that later. Hitler's greatest blunder was attacking Russia so soon, but he was obsessed.

And insofar as the USSR threatening a separate peace, that still would have resulted in the Red Army not being as deeply deployed in Eastern Europe. Furthermore, Stalin would have done so if he'd thought that he could get away with it domestically. The bottom line is, it was in Allied interest for the Soviets to be strong enough to resist, but not strong enough to advance.

...What if the US hadn't joined WWI. Then might it be possible that the Central powers had made peace with the Allies in 1917, thus no revolution in Russia...
No Soviet union, no Sputnik... uh and no sattilites and no one would have bothered to go to the moon yet...I recall a quote from the mid-thirties Churchill lamenting in hindsight the fact that we did. Not only would there have been no Soviet Unioin, there would have been no NAZI Germany either, because the Allies would have been forced to negotiate a more equitable peace. Thus there would have been no punitive Versailles terms to inflame the Germans to follow anyone promising prosperity and revenge.

[Atlantic Friend]

I doubt that an alliance with the West -- or lack thereof -- would have had any effect. The fact is, the Russian people were completely motivated to fight the NAZIs. +


I'm not talking about an alliance with the West here - I'm talking about Stalin opening negotiations for a surrender in autumn, 1941. The will of the people was rather secondary, as it was largely inspired (or maintained) by the Soviet State. Had the Germans reacted favorably to these diplomatic overtures, there wouldn't have been an Eastern front anymore.


Remember, one major reason that the Bolsheviks took power was a series of humiliating defeats under the Tsar, culminating in WWI. This was still in living memory, so another negotiated peace with those who had already brutalized them on such a grand scale may have been enough to have the military AND civilian population desert him.

I beg to differ here. Let's not forget that the Bolsheviks seized power from a pro-democratic government, headed by Kerensky, not from the Czar. And while the Russian army had suffered its share of defeats, it had launched powerful and successful (for WW1 standards) offensives under general Brusilov.

As for the Red Army and the people deserting Stalin, I for one strongly doubt it. The Red Army had been purged in 1937, decapitating the whole commanding officers' corps. What was left was strongly under the influence of political officers. The Stalin-era control over troops and citizens was almost total.


And again, a lack of Western support would not have changed this. Barbarossa was Hitler's doing. I had already addressed the fact that Hitler would have done better by leaving Russia alone and concentrating upon North Africa. But he didn't.

That is a different question. Yes, Barbarossa was Hitler's dream since his early years in the Spandau prison, but even taking into account the late launching of the offensive, Hitler could have won that part of the war - and maybe even WW2 itself.


There were those at the time who warned of Stalin's overt imperial ambitions. Ideological sympathy [some even romanticized the USSR] made FDR ignore such talk.

There also was a realpolitik motive : the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Stalin was Hitler's best enemy.


Everyone knew then why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed -- to keep each other at bay while the Germans attended to the West/Stalin built up his military. Each side knew that there was an irrepressible conflict between them, but were hoping to deal with that later. Hitler's greatest blunder was attacking Russia so soon, but he was obsessed.

The German military intelligence officers miscalculated the number of divisions Stalin would be able to field, and that's precisely why Germany did not agree to a negotiated surrender, as they thought they were facing the very last unites the Soviets could deploy. Add to this that Germany's racial policy deprived the country from natural allies such as Ukrainians, Chechens, Balts, that could have been the downfall of the Soviet Union.


And insofar as the USSR threatening a separate peace, that still would have resulted in the Red Army not being as deeply deployed in Eastern Europe.

Keep in mind the Bolsheviks negotiated an immediate peace with the Germans in 1917 at Brest-Litovsk, and agreed to give Germany large territorial gains. Only Germany's defeat in 1918 and the Soviet-backed revolutions of the 1920s gave Russia an opportunity to retake this land.

After a separated peace in 1941, the Red Army would have had to redeploy to the East very quickly, if only because it could have had to face a hostile and independent Ukraine.

[Count Lippe]

thus no revolution in Russia...
No Soviet union, no Sputnik... uh and no sattilites and no one would have bothered to go to the moon yet...

The Tsar had it coming, no matter what he could have done.
And the Germans would be the first up in space then. ;)

[Ericsson]

has an officer Winston Churchill military blunder in Gallipolihad catastrophic consequences....

[Limeyfellow]

I would say Emperor Augustus. His invasion of Germany was perhaps the greatest military blunder in history and saw the Roman legions massacred. It nearly caused the total collapse of Rome.

Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn is a classic example of bigheaded morons and a half rushing in all happy and getting all his men slaughtered. Teaches us the value of communication and intelligence.

Churchill's plan to invade Turkey during World War 1 was one major mess. Perhaps the biggest blunder in World War 1.

Marshal Joffre who came up with the really clever plan of the Maginot Line in the 30s. You think he would have learnt from the Great Wall of China, but no.

Reginald of Chatillon in the second crusade. Enough said about this prick really.

Theres plenty of blunders through the history of mankind to keep this thread going for decades.

[black templar]

Field Marshal Oskar Potiorek

Who was he?

[MACT-1]

Montgomery- Ruined Market Garden
Goering- Ruined Dunkirk
Saddam- Ruined every war he directed. Only victory was gassing the Kurds.
Burnsides- Weak, weak, weak........

[Atlantic Friend]

As for alternate timelines...

What if the US hadn't joined WWI. Then might it be possible that the Central powers had made peace with the Allies in 1917, thus no revolution in Russia...
No Soviet union, no Sputnik... uh and no sattilites and no one would have bothered to go to the moon yet...

The Revolution could then have occured in Western / Central Europe. A 1916 peace would have occured after most of the slaughter in the trenches had already happened, and national leaders would have had something to show for it. A simple return to the pre-1914 status quo would have left part of the officer corps with the feelings it was robbed a victory that was "just around the corner", and the people with an accute sense of having been used as cannon fodder for no visible gain or clear victory.

[Lokos]

Saddam- Ruined every war he directed. Only victory was gassing the Kurds.

Not to rain on your parade, mate, but there was that little scuffle between 1980 and 1988 with Iran that Iraq didn't do so badly in...

Lokos

[nagant_m44]

Not to rain on your parade, mate, but there was that little scuffle between 1980 and 1988 with Iran that Iraq didn't do so badly in...

Lokos

what did he gain in that war?

[muede]

Defintely SS Oberführer Oskar Dirlewanger,

leader of the Sonderkommando Dirlewanger, a SS storm unit composed by only SS criminals, sadist, child abuser and other freaks.
The higher SS command accused him for war atrocities. (!!!!!)
Suposed death in 1945, some belived that he survived in Egypt as a security guard for Nasser.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger
Actually this person was one of the best commander ever, making this rag tag force of misfits actually fight and function effectively, until the very last days of the war when the unit was mostly built up from German comminists, also the man himself was a great warrior and survived many injuries in the battlefield 9 or 11 times wounded cant recall now. And futhermore, he was a veteran of the two greatest wars of mankind, just bit anti-social, but what can you expect? :D

Regards.

[Kekkonen]

Actually this person was one of the best commander ever.

Agree, the medals speak for themself.


Oskar Dirlewanger


Some of Germany's finest... criminals.

[Lokos]

what did he gain in that war?

In 1988 Iraq was clearly on the up-and-up in that fight. He didn't win much - but he lost nothing against an opponent three times Iraq's size. Now, I am speaking in terms of his leadership role. Seeing as he didn't command a damned thing in any of Iraq's wars this entire line of debate is superfluous. Saddam Hussein was not a commander in the first place, in order to be a 'bad commander'.

Lokos

[Thor]

Montgomery- Ruined Market Garden
Goering- Ruined Dunkirk
To stop at Dunkirk was a political decision straight from Berlin.

Goering is really difficult person to know how to categorize, he is deemed to have been very intelligent but at the most of his time as a general he was a complete catastrophy.

[muede]

Agree, the medals speak for themself.
Yes.

SS-Sturmbrigade "Dirlewanger" (http://www.feldgrau.com/ssbdirl.html)
36.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (http://www.feldgrau.com/36ss.html)

Lots of info, anyways, Dirlewanger was the kind of commander that led from the front, and actully took part in the fighting being wounded total of 12 times. Futher more he was awarded the Ritterkreuz des Eisernes Kreuzes (thats Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross) for his actions, this is no award that was given out like candy, of some 18 million that served with 1933-1945 German armed forces only 7,318 were ever awarded this prize.

So i really find naming him among the "worst military commanders in history" utmost ignorance.

Regards.

[Minardiau]

Not to rain on your parade, mate, but there was that little scuffle between 1980 and 1988 with Iran that Iraq didn't do so badly in...

Lokos

Actually if you read up on it. When he directed the war Iraq was getting hammered. When he handed over the direction of the war to the Iraqi Army they smacked Irans but.

[Kilgor]

To stop at Dunkirk was a political decision straight from Berlin.

Goering is really difficult person to know how to categorize, he is deemed to have been very intelligent but at the most of his time as a general he was a complete catastrophy.

And he was also responsible for economic planning in the reich, however he seemed more interested in looted fine paintings, jewels, grand houses houses, and politics. Not to mention his morphine addiction cause erractic thinking and the disgraceful weight.

Considering the comming of age for airpower in ww2, goering performance certainly was critical and lacklusture. Its just as well for the germans that the luftwaffe had vital experience in spain.

[Minardiau]

To right Goering off military is pretty stupid IMO

Sure he made some pretty ****ing stupid mistakes. Name a commander who hasen't?

He was instrumental in the development of modern air combat, Paratroopers, Blitzkreig ect.

[Lokos]

Actually if you read up on it. When he directed the war Iraq was getting hammered.

What are you talking about? He never directed the war as a commander would. Of course he dictated grand strategy, but he never stopped doing that. The war was prosecuted by Army commanders during all stages.

Lokos

[Loco]

Back to the point, spanish general Silvestre deserves being named as one of the worst commanders in history. His defeat and death, probably suicided himself, in the battle of Annual(Rif mountains, N.Africa) and the lost of his 11.000 troops, encircled and massacrated by berbers troops was caused by incompetence.

[MACT-1]

Goering was a yes man who told his superiors he could destroy the Allies on the beaches of Dunkirk. It was a decision from Berlin based on what Georing stated he could acheive.

I stand by my Saddam statement.

[Thor]

Goering was a yes man who told his superiors he could destroy the Allies on the beaches of Dunkirk. It was a decision from Berlin based on what Georing stated he could acheive.

I stand by my Saddam statement.
The decision from Berlin was to halt at Dunkerque. At that time Hitler still saw a peace with Britain as a possible solution.

[Hutz]

I think the whole German High Command in WW2 can be seen as useless (mostly in the last couple of years). They all ended up being a bunch of yes-men. If you still believe the German Army was completely competent, you should check out this book 'The German Army 1933-1945':

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812885198/qid%3D1136333808/701-5640119-8905910

It'll has a lot of interesting info and dilutes the Blitzkrieg myth.

[ClydeFrog]

There's always going to be "some book diluting some myth"... Like those of the previously mentioned Rezun. Just because it's written down by someone on paper doesn't make it ultimate truth. If the Blitz was a myth, then it was a myth that worked damn well. And a myth that had quite the impact on modern warfare.

[Hutz]

I'm not saying that what the Germans achieved wasn't impressive, just that Blitzkrieg isn't all that it was hyped-up to be. As far as that book is concerned, I agree you can't believe everything that you read, but he does point out a lot of interesting things such as how a lot of the German success was due to France's strategy of defense (which is perfect if you're going to execute another Schliffen? and just bypass the defensives like the Maginot). Just 2 cents.

[foxtrot023]

I'm not saying that what the Germans achieved wasn't impressive, just that Blitzkrieg isn't all that it was hyped-up to be. As far as that book is concerned, I agree you can't believe everything that you read, but he does point out a lot of interesting things such as how a lot of the German success was due to France's strategy of defense (which is perfect if you're going to execute another Schliffen? and just bypass the defensives like the Maginot). Just 2 cents.

How about the initial successes in Russia? The Balkans? Norway? Poland?

I agree with you that the german strategic direction of the war was flawed- thanks in no part to Hitler- but on a tactical level, the German army was second to none in WW2.

and as mentioned above, the best type of flattery is by copying.

[khukuri]

Not to rain on your parade, mate, but there was that little scuffle between 1980 and 1988 with Iran that Iraq didn't do so badly in...

Lokos

the didnt do so badly in was rather despite than due to saddam.

in the both wars against the us he took ****ed up desitions

[Kilgor]

To stop at Dunkirk was a political decision straight from Berlin.

Goering is really difficult person to know how to categorize, he is deemed to have been very intelligent but at the most of his time as a general he was a complete catastrophy.

Goering heavily influenced hitler in the decision to stop. At that time his standing was very good due to the hacking out of the sky of french and british aircraft.

I find it hard to believe people stand up for this man, out of all the military leaders in ww2 , he comes to mind straight away as being within the top 5 first.

Im sure he was a brilliant pilot in ww1, but that doesnt give him a automatic right as even a average commander in ww2.

I have finished reading albert speers "inside the reich" and speer describes goering as only every brilliant or like him former self when he was cleaned off the junk in captivity.