Worst 10 officers of each WWII power.

[33k7]

hindsight is 20-20
Benito Mussolini didn't listen to the military when they told him we're not ready
Joseph Stalin he underestimated Hitler
Adolf Hitler he underestimated the Soviet Union
Hideki Tojo believed his own propaganda and got two nukes dropped on his country for it
Franklin Delano Roosevelt failure to deal with Stalin in a more aggressive way caused Millions to be put behind an Iron Curtain and wasn't properly prepared for a Japanese attack
Neville Chamberlain peace at any cost guarantees no peace
French government not remembering that Germany last time went through Belgium
this is for the British and the French governments not invading Germany while they were preoccupied in Poland. they allowed fear to paralyze them.

 

[jsb]

The logic was a pre-war-rush production and a goofed up design in op-eval. The production run logic was to give London Midland and Scottish Railway pre-war practical experience in building tanks. Since they were brand new to the game, they effed it all up.

Was it a waste? With the Unmentionable Sea Mammal looming in 1940, the first 700 eff-ups that can at least shoot and move in the UK are better than nothing. Now why they built another 1,000 is beyond me.

Yes it was a waste, all they had to do was order the railways to build the Vickers-Armstrong Ltd designed Valentine under supervision and assistance from them and GB would have 1700 working tanks for the same price......

Just from Wiki,
In service,
1940–1943 v 1940–1960

Operators
United Kingdom 0 (in combat) v

Canada

Czechoslovakia

Egypt

Iran

Nazi Germany

New Zealand

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Soviet Union

Turkey

United Kingdom

 

[redrobin65]

French government not remembering that Germany last time went through Belgium

They did remember. Dyle Plan.

 

[McPherson]

Yes it was a waste, all they had to do was order the railways to build the Vickers-Armstrong Ltd designed Valentine under supervision and assistance from them and GB would have 1700 working tanks for the same price......

Just from Wiki,
In service,
1940–1943 v 1940–1960

Operators
United Kingdom 0 (in combat) v

Canada

Czechoslovakia

Egypt

Iran

Nazi Germany

New Zealand

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Soviet Union

Turkey

United Kingdom

Cramped, 2 man model turret is a disaster (up to model IV), lousy radio, underpowered, puny gun, bogs in mud and snow, can road march forever but no spare parts available when something inevitably breaks, no HE rounds for the 4.0cm/60 or the 5.7cm/60 guns in the models provided, armor good, engines (at least the non-American ones), poor. That was what the Russians thought. That is against their own baseline BTs and T-34s.

Somewhere I have a comment that people love a thing when they have no benchmark about what "good" is against which to measure. That was about crappy American small arms from WW II. I think a similar case can be made about British tanks.

The Valentine was a good British tank from 1938-mid 1942. But 1943 onward the assessment might vary with more experience. (YMMV and should.)

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Needing 1700 2pdrs so that Covenanters would have guns to fire occasionally on training(crew would get to fire that on a range a couple times only)
Was totally a waste for a vehicle that only a handful ever left the UK, that crews would never fight in, with a main gun that was already obsolescent -- did no one any favors.

They would have been better served rebuilding the Mk Light 'Tank' into an open topped SPG, using the old Naval 3pdrs, that had been made last in 1936
into something like this

for SeaLion fears, while getting ready to build 6 pdrs and decent tanks to put them in

(Hit post early)

What we have to appreciate here is that the Covenanter was to the Cruiser tanks what the Valentine was to the Matilda II

British Doctrine at the time was to have 2 types of tanks Infantry (Good armour but slow) and Cruiser (Fast but poorer armour) - we know now that this was a poor choice but every one that could was doing it to some degree or another at the time

The Valentine proved to be a good compromise tank for its day and turned out to be a very useful design for the resources thrown at it

The Covenanter sadly did not - although it did make British Armoured divisions that trained with the tank very good at fixing them and very appreciative of the ones they ended up with in 1944 (Cromwell, Sherman and later Comet).

Which is the only good thing I can say about it.

And had sea lion happened then a Covenanter tank - totally gash though it may be - would have been far superior to the handful of German tanks and far superior to the alternative - which is not having a tank at all.

I totally agree that production should have been stopped earlier

 

[S. Marlowski]

They did remember. Dyle Plan.

They were just only preparing to fight on what they thought was going to be a repeat of WWI. Hence the saying "Generals Always Fight the Last War"

 

[Father Maryland]

Separate lists needed

Not really. They all micromanaged enough that they almost count as field commanders.

 

[Jürgen]

True, but there is a lot of nuance in this thread from many people

For example, I am personally more critical of Rommel than most people, because he had no real idea of defensive warfare - his instinct was to retreat to the last fallback position then hold it. Sure, it was a good retreat, and done well, but as strategy it was nonsense. It was a tactical way of looking at things - thus in N Africa once on the backfoot he retreated across the ENTIRETY of Libya and into Tunisia. His plans for Italy would have been to retreat to the far North. In contrast, Kesselring got the idea of strategic retreat - it was to delay your opponents as long as possible, keep them as far away for as long as you could, and make their advance as bloody as possible. Rommel in charge of Italy would have seen the Allies sweep North. Kesselring in charge of Italy made them fight for every inch.

I don’t in general have any big interest in the whole great or bad general thing. But in case of Rommel what I have read and concluded from talks with other people with historical interests, is that he was a competent general who primarily get his reputation for being great because the alternative that he was just competent would be pretty embarrassing for the allies. The fact that he died as he did was also helpful for his reputation, and make it less far embarrassing to admire him than the admiring the generals who fought on the East Front.

 

[DracoLazarus]

I'm gonna say for France that it would have taken a single decision by Noguès to speed the timetable in Africa by years.
And yet he stuck with Vichy, which made possible the battle of Mers el-Kébir.

Aside from that, there's of course Gamelin the syphilitic.
Pétain... I wouldn't rank him as a general as much as a political man. Unlike De Gaulle, he didn't lead any troops during WWII, and even De Gaulle would have ranked as more of a politician than anything.

 

[SsgtC]

I don’t in general have any big interest in the whole great or bad general thing. But in case of Rommel what I have read and concluded from talks with other people with historical interests, is that he was a competent general who primarily get his reputation for being great because the alternative that he was just competent would be pretty embarrassing for the allies. The fact that he died as he did was also helpful for his reputation, and make it less far embarrassing to admire him than the admiring the generals who fought on the East Front.

My take on Rommel is that he was a superb tactician and had operational maneuver warfare down to an art. But he was lacking in his grasp of overall strategy. And was severely deficient in logistics. Rommel was a great Corps Commander, who could deliver an outstanding battle plan. Once someone above him gave him the goal. But he's not the one that could define the goal

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Not really. They all micromanaged enough that they almost count as field commanders.

No, really. The OP asked for 10 worst of each power. Those lists had officers from different countries, hence separate lists needed.

 

[McPherson]

No, really. The OP asked for 10 worst of each power. Those lists had officers from different countries, hence separate lists needed.

That was my understanding.

 

[Rickshaw]

hindsight is 20-20
[...]
Neville Chamberlain peace at any cost guarantees no peace

It is, isn't it? Neville Chamberlain has long been lambasted for his appeasement strategy. However, what most people miss is that the UK's service chiefs impressed on him that they were not ready for a war and weren't prepared to fight one. They insisted on the biggest peacetime rearmament programme that the UK has ever seen. This was only possible 'cause Chamberlain adopted the appeasement policy. Without it, there would have been a war in 1938. The UK would have been completely unprepared for war and was instead given an extra 12 months to order into production the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the other aircraft that it fought the Battle of Britain with.

 

[Rickshaw]

My take on Rommel is that he was a superb tactician and had operational maneuver warfare down to an art. But he was lacking in his grasp of overall strategy. And was severely deficient in logistics. Rommel was a great Corps Commander, who could deliver an outstanding battle plan. Once someone above him gave him the goal. But he's not the one that could define the goal

Rommel was an opportunist. He took advantage of the poor SIG security that the British Army suffered from. Even changing to Hindi as many units did, didn't help. He knew where the 8th Army units were and what they were doing. He was also helped by the US officer assigned to 8th Army HQ who would send daily updates from there to Washington specifying how many tanks there were and where Units were located. The Italians had captured the Black Code from the US embassy in Rome and supplied it quite happily to Rommels SIGINT unit. Once it was captured at el Alamein at tel-al-arisa by the Australian 9 Division, he was basically blinded. He fought relatively badly after that.

Rommel was an excellent Division commander who was promoted to a Corps commander and wasn't able to perform all it's functions. Rommel would quite often go forward, out of touch with his HQ and take command of units at the "schwerepunkt" and perform well as a battalion or brigade commander.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

It is, isn't it? Neville Chamberlain has long been lambasted for his appeasement strategy. However, what most people miss is that the UK's service chiefs impressed on him that they were not ready for a war and weren't prepared to fight one. They insisted on the biggest peacetime rearmament programme that the UK has ever seen. This was only possible 'cause Chamberlain adopted the appeasement policy. Without it, there would have been a war in 1938. The UK would have been completely unprepared for war and was instead given an extra 12 months to order into production the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the other aircraft that it fought the Battle of Britain with.

This is fine, but once war was declared, Chamberlain was a poor PM. Appeasement as a means to buy time is all well and good, but it wasn’t really what Chamberlain was trying to achieve. He was naively trying to avoid a war with an extreme nationalist in charge of a militarist government who had designs on 60% or more of the European continent. He was hoodwinked by Hitler when the slightest of displays of strength would have caused the Nazis to fold. Chamberlain may well have been told by his service chiefs Britain wasn’t ready for war, but it was mild compared to the warnings (and beliefs) of a good percentage of the Wehrmacht’s service chiefs in ‘38 or early ‘39.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Kenji Doihara was a comically bloodthirsty nitwit, but honestly I don't know if any IJA generals other then Yamashita were worth their oxygen.

There were few, but they existed. There was Kuribayashi, as noted by @SsgtC . There was also Field Marshal Baron Nobuyoshi Muto. Muto was a a decorated veteran, and a hero of the Russo-Japanese war (in the IJA, the rank of Field Marshal is more like Marshal of France, in that it confers great honour but no additional authority). Muto was briefly commanding officer of the Kwantung Army in Manchuko, and was horrified by the poor discipline, brutality and, and criminality exhibited by the troops under his command. He tried to clamp down on offenders, and was disobeyed. He complained to the War Ministry and was relieved of command. He died in Japan shortly after. His cause of death was listed as jaundice; suicide over the shame of being unable to control the Kwantung Army, even without assistance was the likelier explanation.

Some other dishonourable mentions include:

-Akira Muto. Lousy tactician, worse strategist, and responsible for war crimes and massacres in Malaya and other theatres.

-Renya Mutaguchi. If at first you don't succeed, waste more lives trying the same thing again and again and again...

-Isamu Cho. An ill-tempered martinet who ultimately ordered the start to the Rape of Nanking, issuing the order in Prince Asaka's name. Also plotted and participated in militarist coups.

-Seishiro Itagaki. Mediocre to poor general, but corrupt and brutal militarist.

-And as if Kenji Doihara wasn't bad enough, he also trafficked opium, and was himself an opium addict.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

He was naively trying to avoid a war with an extreme nationalist in charge of a militarist government who had designs on 60% or more of the European continent.

If Chamberlain was such a naive peacenik, why did he declare war on Germany?

 

[Worffan101]

-Renya Mutaguchi. If at first you don't succeed, waste more lives trying the same thing again and again and again...

I looked this guy up, and wow, he managed to kill so many of his own men that the IJA thought he'd gone too far. That's just straight-up madness, who gets nearly two-thirds of their own army killed through repeatedly trying the same damn plan?

I'm genuinely not sure if him, Cho, or Doihara was the most absurdly awful. If Cho sent out orders with faked signatures at Nanjing (I doubt it, given that he was such a fanatical ultranationalist), he probably takes the cake for most evil on a direct personal level, in that that would make him the most willing to authorize wanton slaughter for no discernable reason outside of simple racism, but even if Prince Asaka participated in making that crazy decision (which I personally believe), Cho was still a disgusting person on every level.

 

[Rickshaw]

This is fine, but once war was declared, Chamberlain was a poor PM. Appeasement as a means to buy time is all well and good, but it wasn’t really what Chamberlain was trying to achieve. He was naively trying to avoid a war with an extreme nationalist in charge of a militarist government who had designs on 60% or more of the European continent. He was hoodwinked by Hitler when the slightest of displays of strength would have caused the Nazis to fold. Chamberlain may well have been told by his service chiefs Britain wasn’t ready for war, but it was mild compared to the warnings (and beliefs) of a good percentage of the Wehrmacht’s service chiefs in ‘38 or early ‘39.

That would explain why he declared war on Germany then?

Chamberlain may have been a mediocre war leader but there was only Churchill as an alternative he wasn't all that much better IMO. He wanted to go haring off on invading Norway or Greece, at various times during the war, He bullied his commanders into mounting offensives before they were ready in the desert. He made rash decisions WRT economics.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

I looked this guy up, and wow, he managed to kill so many of his own men that the IJA thought he'd gone too far. That's just straight-up madness, who gets nearly two-thirds of their own army killed through repeatedly trying the same damn plan?

I'm genuinely not sure if him, Cho, or Doihara was the most absurdly awful. If Cho sent out orders with faked signatures at Nanjing (I doubt it, given that he was such a fanatical ultranationalist), he probably takes the cake for most evil on a direct personal level, in that that would make him the most willing to authorize wanton slaughter for no discernable reason outside of simple racism, but even if Prince Asaka participated in making that crazy decision (which I personally believe), Cho was still a disgusting person on every level.

A big problem in the IJA was that radical officers and men were not above deceit, or even murder to achieve their insane aims. If anyone would have, it would have been Cho.

But, on the other hand,

Prince Asaka also had severe problems which were ignored because he was an Imperial Prince. He was severely depressed. In 1923, he was in a car accident while studying in France, so he walked slowly with a limp for the rest of his life. Princess Asaka died young in 1933, a blow from which he never recovered. He self-medicated extensively with alcohol.

A fanatically racist militarist, an Imperial Prince who was more than likely drunk and withdrawn, and Matsui, the general responsible for both ill with pneumonia...nobody looks good.