Worst 10 officers of each WWII power.

1. Bribery.
2. Insubordination.
3. Sutherland.
4. Willoughby
5. Clark Field disaster.
6. Chinese at the Yalu River.
7. Curtin.
8. Alamo Force.
9. Eichelberger diaries.
10. Blamey.
11. Filipino mistress.
12. Brereton.

Just type in MacArthur and each one of those as the second entry in a search and watch GOOGLE generate hits. "The Great Thespian" was a very flawed man.
You could honestly replace most of that list with Willoughby alone and you'd still have a strong case against Dugout Doug ever holding a command.
 
Hitler. Stalin. Himmler. Churchill. Paulus.



What exactly was wrong with MacArthur? I don't know that much about the guy besides people who choose American Caesar in Kaiserreich are morons.
Despite his (failed) effort to sign on on the complement of a cruiser for D-Day, Winston Churchill was strictly a politician, in WW2, not a military officer. Except when he was visiting his old regiment, the hussars; I think he was an honorary officer still of them for ceremonial purposes.
 
Other British contenders for a 'worst ten' include, to my mind:
Percival - defeated by the Imperial Japanese in Malaya and Singapore, despite having more troops and refused to build defences 'in case it damaged morale'. (Outside WW2, there seem to be question marks over whether he used torture in interrogations in Ireland after WW1.)
- Lumsden & Gatehouse - armoured commanders at second El Alamein. Refused to follow the plan; refused to adequately explain at critical moments what they were doing; almost messed up the battle on several occasions, between them. In their defence, according to some accounts they and their commands may have become traumatised after several defeats under Auchinleck of the Axis anti-tank guns.
- Corbett, Dorman-Smith, Ritchie - apparently these guys were some of the masterminds, under Auchinleck, of the 'disperse artillery to make things more comfortable for the Germans and Italians' and 'break up armoured formations so that Rommel can fight them piecemeal and roll them up in detail' tactics during Auchinleck's tenure of the 8th army.
- Whoever the idiot was in the Norway campaign in 1940 who thought sending a RN carrier (HMS Glorious) with only a couple of destroyer escorts out into the North Sea with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau on the prowl.
- Whoever the idiot or idiots were who thought it was a good idea for HMS Hood to fight Bismarck; possibly the same brain or brains may have had something to do with Bismarck almost getting away to France afterwards... if it hadn't been for that lucky rudder hit...
- Portal and Harris for their parts in the bomber campaign - one of the highlights of which was that after the success of 'Operation Chastise' with two of the dams put out of commission, instead of following up with conventional attacks, to hinder/disrupt the repairs process, they went off back to terror-bombing or whatever it was that they considered more important. I have seen it alleged in print that at least one of these idiots said that Chastise had been a failure. The Germans swiftly repaired the dams and had the reservoirs filled back up within something like a couple of months.
- possibly Gort for his handling of things during the Fall of France, though this may have been a case of over-promotion and/or being stuck with having to follow the wishes of his French allies. Apparently he was a halfway decent governor of Malta, when he was sent there later in the war.
- possibly those responsible for fighting during the land campaign in Norway in 1940.
- as someone mentioned, up-thread, the idiot in Burma in 1942 who blew up a bridge, before British & allied forces had finished retreating across it.

I'm in two minds over whether Auchinleck was a bad commander, or simply relied on and trusted in the wrong subordinates.

I'll add that to my mind Montgomery doesn't come close to the worst ten. Diplomacy and tact when dealing with equals or superiors, were very clearly not amongst his gifts, but he actually managed to produce wins against the Germans - and that in despite being dropped, at the start of his 8th Army tenure, into a position in charge of a repeatedly beaten and bewildered army, where morale wasn't exactly good.
And to anyone saying 'of course he would have won. He had more troops', ask the Romans how that went for them at Cannae, or ask Percival how it went for him at Singapore.
Percival - certainly had his faults and probably does deserve to be on this list - but he was presented with an unwinnable battle, surrounded by useless subordinates, actual number of 'fighting men' was smaller than the Japanese - he initially had 6 fighting Brigades in 3 Divisions with incomplete TO&E - many of the units had not completed their training - some had been effectively Militia formations several months before - one of the British Indian Army battalions for example was literally made up of untrained 18 year old Gurkhas. Against this the Yamashitas 25th Army had brought 11 Regiments in 3 Divisions each of 2600 men or 3500 strong in the case of the 18th Division (all of Veteran Infantry) with 3 Tank Regiments in support (with a 4th arriving later). Tell me again who had more soldiers?

Lumsden & Gatehouse - Monty told Lumsden what he wanted him to do in the Battle of El Alamein ie work with the infantry not to go swanning off and get smashed up etc (After the Australian Commanders had told him that is what the armoured units would do) - and Lumsden blunty told him no. And preceded not to do it. Monty had no one immediately to hand to replace him with otherwise I think he might have fired him on the spot. Gatehouse not so familiar with but Lumsden belongs on the list.

Corbett, Dorman-Smith, Ritchie - maybe? Dorman-Smith was apparently crazier than a shit house rat and wa a real outside of the box thinker when perhaps he ought not have been.

Ritchie - I am going to give him a pass - he lost Gazala but we now know that Rommel had a better appreciation of British Commonwealth dispositions than he did.

He was reading Richies mail!

If it was not for the radio intercepts and other op sec failures then it is highly unlikely that Rommel would have won. Ritchie later went on to command XII Corps from Normandy to VE day

Corbett does seem to be getting on a bit in 1942 and was Indian Army (Monty had a poor opinion of Indian Army officers)

HMS Glorious forgetting she was a man of war was the fault of her Captain He was a trained Pilot and thought he knew better than his pilots

One of his Pilots disagreed with him to the point that D'Oyle-Hughes beached him and the reason Glorious was steaming with half her boilers unlit on half steaming watch, no aircraft warmed up etc etc with just 2 escorting DDs? He wanted to return to Scapa to court Martial his senior pilot. That's it. As reasons go it's pretty pathetic - he won the VC in WW1 and was undoubtedly a brave man but he belongs on the list for the loss of Glorious.

Admiral Tovey was the officer in charge at Denmark Strait

If not Hood then who do you send? At the time only Hood, Renown, Repulse, KGV and POW had the speed to catch Bismarck.

Renown was in Gib with the Ark as part of Force H and so initially played no part.

I seem to recall that KGV and Repulse were covering the other potential exit south of Iceland?

I give Tovey a Pass. Hood died doing her job. And he tried to ensure that Bismarck was always going to be opposed by 2 Warships.

Portal and Harris - get a high 5 for the Ruhr campaign where in 1943 destruction and damage to this region the Germans effectively suffered more tank, aircraft and gun losses due to lost production than the Russians destroyed on the Eastern front during the same period. The then switch to City bombing which did not contribute nearly as much and allowed the Ruhr to recover does probably belong on this list. Fun Chastise facts - the Dams were not fully refilled for fear that they would be breached again. Harris moight have considered the raid a disaster but he could not have known the damage to mines factories and lost production (due to loss of Hydroelectric power) that it caused. The Germans put out tenders to French companies to rebuild the dams and the one that won.....had been building bunkers on the Normandy beaches....which it stopped doing for half a year.

Not sure why Gort belongs here. He saved the BEF by pretty much ignoring out of date and idiotic orders from his French Superiors and equally idiotic Political leaders in London and recognised the real threat that his entire command could be surrounded and destroyed in a campaign that had already been lost. Had he not acted when he did knowing that he would not be thanked for it - there is a POD for you. As examples of Moral bravery goes it a pretty good one IMO - he saved 5 out of every 6 men under his command - men that would form the core of Britains WW2 army.
 
Last edited:
Percival - certainly had his faults and probably does deserve to be on this list - but he was presented with an unwinnable battle, surrounded by useless subordinates, actual number of 'fighting men' was smaller than the Japanese - he initially had 6 fighting Brigades in 3 Divisions with incomplete TO&E - many of the units had not completed their training - some had been effectively Militia formations several months before - one of the British Indian Army battalions for example was literally made up of untrained 18 year old Gurkhas. Against this the Yamashitas 25th Army had brought 11 Regiments in 3 Divisions each of 2600 men or 3500 strong in the case of the 18th Division (all of Veteran Infantry) with 3 Tank Regiments in support (with a 4th arriving later). Tell me again who had more soldiers?

Lumsden & Gatehouse - Monty told Lumsden what he wanted him to do in the Battle of El Alamein ie work with the infantry not to go swanning off and get smashed up etc (After the Australian Commanders had told him that is what the armoured units would do) - and Lumsden blunty told him no. And preceded not to do it. Monty had no one immediately to hand to replace him with otherwise I think he might have fired him on the spot. Gatehouse not so familiar with but Lumsden belongs on the list.

Corbett, Dorman-Smith, Ritchie - maybe? Dorman-Smith was apparently crazier than a shit house rat and wa a real outside of the box thinker when perhaps he ought not have been.

Ritchie - I am going to give him a pass - he lost Gazala but we now know that Rommel had a better appreciation of British Commonwealth dispositions than he did.

He was reading Richies mail!

If it was not for the radio intercepts and other op sec failures then it is highly unlikely that Rommel would have won. Ritchie later went on to command XII Corps from Normandy to VE day

Corbett does seem to be getting on a bit in 1942 and was Indian Army (Monty had a poor opinion of Indian Army officers)

HMS Glorious forgetting she was a man of war was the fault of her Captain He was a trained Pilot and thought he knew better than his pilots

One of his Pilots disagreed with him to the point that D'Oyle-Hughes beached him and the reason Glorious was steaming with half her boilers unlit on half steaming watch, no aircraft warmed up etc etc with just 2 escorting DDs? He wanted to return to Scapa to court Martial his senior pilot. That's it. As reasons go it's pretty pathetic - he won the VC in WW1 and was undoubtedly a brave man but he belongs on the list for the loss of Glorious.

Admiral Tovey was the officer in charge at Denmark Strait

If not Hood then who do you send? At the time only Hood, Renown, Repulse, KGV and POW had the speed to catch Bismarck.

Renown was in Gib with the Ark as part of Force H and so initially played no part.

I seem to recall that KGV and Repulse were covering the other potential exit south of Iceland?

I give Tovey a Pass. Hood died doing her job. And he tried to ensure that Bismarck was always going to be opposed by 2 Warships.

Portal and Harris - get a high 5 for the Ruhr campaign where in 1943 destruction and damage to this region the Germans effectively suffered more tank, aircraft and gun losses due to lost production than the Russians destroyed on the Eastern front during the same period. The then switch to City bombing which did not contribute nearly as much and allowed the Ruhr to recover does probably belong on this list. Fun Chastise facts - the Dams were not fully refilled for fear that they would be breached again. Harris moight have considered the raid a disaster but he could not have known the damage to mines factories and lost production (due to loss of Hydroelectric power) that it caused. The Germans put out tenders to French companies to rebuild the dams and the one that won.....had been building bunkers on the Normandy beaches....which it stopped doing for half a year.

Not sure why Gort belongs here. He saved the BEF by pretty much ignoring out of date and idiotic orders from his French Superiors and equally idiotic Political leaders in London and recognised the real threat that his entire command could be surrounded and destroyed in a campaign that had already been lost. Had he not acted when he did knowing that he would not be thanked for it - there is a POD for you. As examples of Moral bravery goes it a pretty good one IMO - he saved 5 out of every 6 men under his command - men that would form the core of Britains WW2 army.
I might slightly disagree about Harris. For example the results in the Ruhr were mixed. Rest of the air farce stuff, 3.8 out of 4.0
 
I've been on here for a while, I just know jack shit about Big Mac except he tried to nuke China that one time and he looked dope.

Edit: Oh! And if you let him coup the government in Kaiserreich you're factually wrong and I hope you die a painful death
The Bonus Army. Also what others said.
 
Uh, you cited revisionist.net, which is full of Nazi war crimes denialism and whataboutism...
Wow these fucks are pretty unrepentant Nazis. They actually put "German War Crimes" in quotation marks.

"Beginning with “re-education” at the end of the War, Germany has continued the strict censorship imposed by the Soviet and the Allied occupiers. Even today, using the “special history” excuse, “nationalistic” books, songs and symbols are illegal even in private in Austria and Germany, and Germany has been aggressive in trying to expand its own strict laws beyond its borders. Almost all prosecutions of censorship violations have taken place in connection with what they term holocaust “revisionism” or “denial.” Merely questioning an aspect, re-analyzing data, expressing a maverick theory or trying to revise a statistic pertaining to this subject is lumped under “holocaust denial” which is illegal not only in Germany and Austria, but in most of Europe. “To have failed to write about a particular historical event in a balanced manner” (?) is a crime that can send an amateur historian to jail and he will often serve a longer sentence than a child molester or serial rapist.


Thousands of people have been convicted of violating European “denial” laws and they are currently languishing in European dungeons. Cases prosecuted under these laws go unchallenged even when the convicted parties were pacifists and never proposed violence but were simply expressing their opinion. In the cases of scientists, artists, singers or writers convicted of this offense, their homes and businesses are raided and their work is destroyed by the state. Worse, the definition of “denial” is being broadened and is defined today as “hard-core” and “soft-core” denial, the latter including discussion of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany as well as the Expulsions of ethnic German civilians after the war. Even liberal writers extremely critical of the Third Reich have been tarnished as “soft-core deniers” when they came out with books discussing the heavy toll of Allied bombing upon the German civilians in the war."


 
Last edited:
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Alright. I’ll bite. When I searched for the bok, the first review said said that it was jingoistic. Do you have Hitlers direct quotes?
I can't help but notice how you're doing your damndest to ignore the other sources people have pointed out and using a second hand source to attack the book rather than discuss the actual point, especially since you haven't linked to it and I couldn't find the review itself, only generally positive ones.. You're not showing many signs of arguing in good faith. We have plenty of resources detailing Nazi plans from their own mouths, Eagle Couldson pointing that out. The Black Book made by the Nazi high command is one such source detailing the people they planned to outright massacre should Sealion be successful:


The Nazis were planning to destroy the UK, the plans in the Black Book were merely the start. As has been pointed out and sourced, rape camps, slave labour and robbing the nation of its cultural riches were all things planned for.
 
I can't help but notice how you're doing your damndest to ignore the other sources people have pointed out and using a second hand source to attack the book rather than discuss the actual point, especially since you haven't linked to it and I couldn't find the review itself, only generally positive ones.. You're not showing many signs of arguing in good faith. We have plenty of resources detailing Nazi plans from their own mouths, Eagle Couldson pointing that out. The Black Book made by the Nazi high command is one such source detailing the people they planned to outright massacre should Sealion be successful:


The Nazis were planning to destroy the UK, the plans in the Black Book were merely the start. As has been pointed out and sourced, rape camps, slave labour and robbing the nation of its cultural riches were all things planned for.
I just don’t want to get into the weeds on this. Whether Hitler intended to destroy Britain is irrelevant to weather the attack was morally or legally justifiable.
 
Article on ethical leadership.

Article on military ethics.

SARCASTIC COMMENT follows.


There is an anecdote I like to pass along on occasion about Raymond Ames Spruance and Miles Browning. It happened after Browning lost his temper when Spruance overruled him during the Enterprise pilot's ruckus when they were ordered to go out to give Kurita the works during the Battle of Midway. As usual, Browning had FUCKED UP the op-order and set a mission profile for 1000 lbr SAPPY bombs and screwed the fuel calculations up so that halfway back the pilots would be flying on fumes and would have to ditch. Spruance changed that op-order to 500 lbrs and delayed the launch an hour to close the distance (At a considerable risk I might add.). Browning threw his hat on the deck and stormed out of the Pry-fly leaving Spruance, Buckmaster and Wade McClusky, who led the "so-called mutiny", to work out the details for the new op-order.

A bit later on Browning returned to the aerie after he calmed down and 'apologized" to Spruance in his usual insubordinate way. Spruance threw down the newspaper he read, as Browning said his say and quietly answered that "gentleman" when Browning asked him, how could he read a newspaper in the middle of a battle?

I paraphrase it, but Spruance replied something to the effect that he was curious about the world outside of this battle and he found an interesting article about a bank robber who was about to be executed for bungling a simple holdup. He, the convicted felon, had panicked and shot a teller and a bank guard. Spruance said to Browning that the bank robber reminded him of the admiral and Browning in that what he, the robber, did as a profession, robbing people and killing them, was like what a professional military officer does in WARTIME: commit similar criminal acts, only the military officer has a state of war to make it all legal. The good officers do it very well and they try to do it as cleanly and efficiently as possible without unnecessary mayhem, suffering and murder and limit the damage to the assigned targets, but it is still mayhem, suffering and murder. The exact similarity between the bank robber and Browning, the admiral declared next; was "The robber and you have shown me, you are incompetent, Browning. Apology accepted."

We know this, because there were witnesses (^^^).
 
Despite his (failed) effort to sign on on the complement of a cruiser for D-Day, Winston Churchill was strictly a politician, in WW2, not a military officer. Except when he was visiting his old regiment, the hussars; I think he was an honorary officer still of them for ceremonial purposes.
He had a long list of ranks - mostly honourary - and I believe attended at least one meeting with FDR in RAF dress uniform (no, the RAF do not wear dresses... well, OK, the WRAF might...)
From Wiki: -

Admiral Tovey was the officer in charge at Denmark Strait
Tovey was the C-in-C Home Fleet. If you mean the man on the spot, Lancelot Holland was the operational commander who went down with Hood. There are several questions that have been raised about his tactics on the night & following morning but reasons also advanced supporting what he did. I don't think either Tovey or Holland belong on a list of the 10 worst Empire/Commonwealth commanders, and Tovey strongly supported his own officers, such as Wake-Walker who Pound, at Churchill's urgings, wanted court martialled; Tovey threatened to haul down his flag & appear as prisoner's friend.
 
I just don’t want to get into the weeds on this. Whether Hitler intended to destroy Britain is irrelevant to weather the attack was morally or legally justifiable.
In moral terms I agree. I'd say it is on a similar rank with the use of strategic bombing on civilians. Guernica, London, Coventry, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.

Legally? All were intended as waypoints on the road to victory. The French Fleet could have been turned against Britain, and that left the hard option of killing - not enemy civilians, but sailors who a few short weeks ago were allies, which probably makes it even worse from both the RN & MN perspectives.

In the end the victors write the history. I just read that von Kleist was convicted of the crime of suborning the Russian civilians with "kindness."
 
Tovey was the C-in-C Home Fleet. If you mean the man on the spot, Lancelot Holland was the operational commander who went down with Hood. There are several questions that have been raised about his tactics on the night & following morning but reasons also advanced supporting what he did. I don't think either Tovey or Holland belong on a list of the 10 worst Empire/Commonwealth commanders, and Tovey strongly supported his own officers, such as Wake-Walker who Pound, at Churchill's urgings, wanted court martialled; Tovey threatened to haul down his flag & appear as prisoner's friend.
It was the Home fleet that fought the battle!

Tovey therefore was the man who sent Hood - he acted correctly - 4 fast Battleships - 2 gaps to cover!
 
Are you high? Hitler was easily one of the best generals of germany, if not the entire war. People look at the insane broken shell of a man ranting in 1945 and ignore how in 1940 he snatched utter triumph from a dire situation most generals saw as catastrophic. Gröfaz was an unironic term for him, used by leaders recognized even by their adversaries as top tier and many of them not even slavish Hitler cultists.

Hitler was the blackst of evil, but he was still a evil genius. Or the impoverished, shrunken and isolated germany he took over wouldn't have stretched from Brest to Stalingrad and held out for years against the combined might of the rest of the damn planet. While Endsieg was a fantasy people really need to appreciate how utterly absurd the actual german achievement in the war was. If you made a fictional story like it would most certainly be moved to the ASB section by forum consensus.
 
Percival - certainly had his faults and probably does deserve to be on this list - but he was presented with an unwinnable battle, surrounded by useless subordinates, actual number of 'fighting men' was smaller than the Japanese - he initially had 6 fighting Brigades in 3 Divisions with incomplete TO&E - many of the units had not completed their training - some had been effectively Militia formations several months before - one of the British Indian Army battalions for example was literally made up of untrained 18 year old Gurkhas. Against this the Yamashitas 25th Army had brought 11 Regiments in 3 Divisions each of 2600 men or 3500 strong in the case of the 18th Division (all of Veteran Infantry) with 3 Tank Regiments in support (with a 4th arriving later). Tell me again who had more soldiers?...
Percival had more soldiers. Militias and untested troops have been part of warfare ever since a ruler needed to scramble a force to take advantage of a neighbour's weakness or to respond to an invasion attempt. Katharine of Aragon had militias amongst her troops at Flodden Field; Wellington and Blucher had them as part of their armies at Waterloo; and oh yes, MacArthur and Blamey had them in New Guinea. (That's right: Douglas MacArthur beat the Imperial Japanese in New Guinea in campaigns using troops which were partially militias. As far as can see, that makes Percival literally worse than Douglas MacArthur, if we're going by an ability to get a victory out of a campaign with a partially militia force.)
I'll give you that Percival was apparently short-changed in the aircraft department, if you want to mount a defence of him based on that.
 
...Hitler was the blackst of evil, but he was still a evil genius. Or the impoverished, shrunken and isolated germany he took over wouldn't have stretched from Brest to Stalingrad and held out for years against the combined might of the rest of the damn planet. While Endsieg was a fantasy people really need to appreciate how utterly absurd the actual german achievement in the war was. If you made a fictional story like it would most certainly be moved to the ASB section by forum consensus.
As far as I can make out, Hitler was good at inspiring fanaticism in his troops. He was a Prophet With A Message and a way of delivering it which made people want to believe.
 
but he was still a evil genius.
Eh, genius is too strong. He made some good decisions, took some good gambles, and completely ballsed up others. I wouldn’t say genius. But utter military incompetent he certainly wasn’t. That image was pushed by the generals who were doing their damndest to pin every iota I’d blame on Hitler while claiming that if only he’d listened to THEM things would have been different.
 
Top