NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like your nominations for the worst Allied and Axis generals, admirals, or commanders of WWII. We always hear the best mentioned, but who, in your opinion, is the worst?

For the Axis, I'd vote Himmler, with a dishonorable mention to Goring who personally screwed up the Luftwaffe as much as he could. But Himmler wins the gold star in my book.

For the Allies, I'd vote the Brit general in command of Singapore. Percival. Surrendering to a far inferior force takes real courage . He runs away with the title in my opinion. Off course Monthy was overestimated, just like Patton too but Percival is the worst for me. Any thoughts?

Not sure. Do they have be from World War II, or will any war suffice?

I do, however, have someone in mind for most mediocre and most overrated general: Dwight D. Eisenhower.

For the Axis, I'd vote Himmler, with a dishonorable mention to Goring who personally screwed up the Luftwaffe as much as he could. But Himmler wins the gold star in my book.
Did Himmler command any troops in the field?

I vote for, whatever their names are, the Italian generals in charge of the Greek and North African campaign.

Did Himmler command any troops in the field?

I vote for, whatever their names are, the Italian generals in charge of the Greek and North African campaign.


Yes Himmler was given an Army groop (so lots of divisions) at the Oder front in '45, he himself asked for his relief and the command was given to another general (SS or Whermacht have to look for that).

About the Italians, nowadays people tend to agree on WWII sites that they helped the Africa corps better then expacted (oK Greece was a failure but they where cannon fluder that helped the Germans a lot). Ariete division was at the level of the Afrika korps, so where their mountain troops from the best in the Axis.

I vote for, whatever their names are, the Italian generals in charge of the Greek and North African campaign.

Lol, they got their @$$es kicked! :p

And, as I'm sure Von Witzleben would agree, Eisenhower was also a coldblooded murderer.

About the Italians, nowadays people tend to agree on WWII sites that they helped the Africa corps better then expacted (oK Greece was a failure but they where cannon fluder that helped the Germans a lot). Ariete division was at the level of the Afrika korps, so where their mountain troops from the best in the Axis.
Yes, sure. I wasn't saying anything about the Italian troops. They did remarkebly well once they had a competent leader.(Rommel) ;)

And, as I'm sure Von Witzleben would agree, Eisenhower was also a coldblooded murderer.
That goes without saying.

And, as I'm sure Von Witzleben would agree, Eisenhower was also a coldblooded murderer.


So are most of them but it is about the worst general. Harris to was a criminal, just like his Nazi concurents in the killing of civilians.

Good book "The fire" by Friedrich about the planed destruction of the German culture and citizens, published in 2004.Gives us another view on what we did.

Eisenhower should have been tried as a war criminal.

Eisenhower should have been tried as a war criminal.
Without a doubt. And FDR and Truman as well for that matter.(Or Bush Sr.) But since when are the victors tried?

Without a doubt. And FDR and Truman as well for that matter.(Or Bush Sr.) But since when are the victors tried?

Agreed. FDR should have been impeached for Pearl Harbor as well, not to mention his secret alliance with the British prior to that. Thanks to that son of a b**** FDR, WWII lasted much longer than it could have, because he refused to support anti-Hitler Germans who genuinely wanted peace (which was a large percentage of them), seeking only "unconditional surrender." And, contrary to popular belief, the A-bomb was not at all necessary. The Japanese had been trying for at least a year to surrender.

So are most of them but it is about the worst general. Harris to was a criminal, just like his Nazi concurents in the killing of civilians.

Good book "The fire" by Friedrich about the planed destruction of the German culture and citizens, published in 2004.Gives us another view on what we did.

I am not finding that title......

Well,

Just as I find it difficult to discuss the "best general" it is also difficult to discuss the "worst general" since it is completely impossible to establish objective criteria on which to perform a comparison. How do you compare say Percival's defeat at Singapore in 1941-1942 with that of Busch's at Army Group Center in 1944?

Nevertheless it is often intriguing to do so but IMHO it cannot be more than a very subjective opinion, so here is my few cents.

Despite this we need some kind of measurement to judge from, and let us concentrate on commanders in the field (leaving out staff officers and political wannabe generals like Himmler and Hitler) in order to keep it simple, but how do we define "the worst"?

Well properly by defining "the best" and letting "the worst" be the opposite. IMHO Lord Wavell have done it best defining the good commander in his Generals and Generalship, where he saw the first essential of a good commander to be:



(I don't have my own copy at hand at the moment, so I'm quoting D.M. Horner's (1978) The Crisis of Command, p. xviii)

During a battle (including preparing for battle) this can be tested by looking at how he correspond to the pressure made upon him by not only the enemy through their actions but also by public opinion, political leaders, superior officers and subordinates. So with this rather loose definition let's take at the name suggested.

Firstly I will leave out Hitler, Mussolini & Hitler [ed. last Hitler should be Himmler] and stick with purely professional soldiers.

Secondly successful commanders (no matter how they achieved their success) can IMHO come in consideration as "worst", which leaves out Clark, MacArthur or Zhukov. Whether ever can be said of these they were successful. That said I should point out that I'm far from a fan of Clark or MacArthur, and I wouldn't count on any of them when considering "the best" (Nor Zhukov for that matter).

Thirdly on the Italians I would strongly refrain from the above kind of stereotyping. The Italians had their share of bad generals as well as good generals (who often did not have the means to prove it).

Well - this leaves us with a rather short list: Voroshilov, Timoshenko & Percival. Of these, I feel, only Percival can aspire for the title. I don't think that there can be much doubt that Percival failed considerably when looking on the above criteria. He did not have the robustness, the ability to stand the shock of war. Yet I don't think that he is the right candidate for the worst general, for that he took up the post of General Officer Commanding Malaya too late (May 1941) to redeem the failings of British politics during the 1930'ties and far too much was beyond his control. One could question whether any other general could have done much better than prolonged the inevitable (Like the Americans at the Philippines). I suggest reading C. Kinvig: Scapegoat : General Percival of Singapore for a more balanced view on him.

So who was the worst commander of WWII? While the loss of Singapore may have shocked the British and Australians there were plenty of other shocks at time of equal magnitude affecting other nations.

I was thinking of a disaster that shock the whole world. Namely that of the defeat of the French army in May-June 1940, where we find IMHO the worst commander of WWII: Maurice Gamelin. Having finally reached my candidate I'll keep my arguments short.

Here we have a commander that had been preparing for this battle since he became chief of the French general staff in 1931 or at least since he became c-in-c designated in 1935. He completely failed to prepare the French army for war. Admittedly he could not have foreseen exactly what was coming, but he did nothing or very little due to pressure from the public opinion and the French politicians. This may be but what makes this error even graver is that he didn't react after war had begun. He accepted a status quo despite of what had been seen in Poland.

And finally when the attack came in May 1940 he showed that he had none of the above-mentioned qualities. He completely lost his power of command unable to make any decisions, yielding to pressure from not only German actions but also to that of the public opinion, politicians and subordinates. Whatever failings Percival had, he cannot be said to have lost the power of command in same degree as Gamelin, making him a far worse commander than Percival. Therefore my candidate as the worst commander. Btw. M.S. Alexander's: The Republic in Danger : Maurice Gamelin and the Politics of French Defence 1933-1944, is a very good read.

However as I said in the beginning it is my subjective opinion and you could easily argue for other candidates.

Btw. I mention Busch in the beginning and he too is a very strong candidate promoted way above his ceiling but Hitler's meddling make it difficult to really judge him.

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II

Agreed. FDR should have been impeached for Pearl Harbor as well, not to mention his secret alliance with the British prior to that. Thanks to that son of a b**** FDR, WWII lasted much longer than it could have, because he refused to support anti-Hitler Germans who genuinely wanted peace (which was a large percentage of them), seeking only "unconditional surrender." And, contrary to popular belief, the A-bomb was not at all necessary. The Japanese had been trying for at least a year to surrender.
So did Chamberlain. His administration was approached as early as 1938 by a group of German officers pleading for an intervention while the Wehrmacht was still unprepaired. But at that time the West considerd Hitler as a champion against bolsjewism and did nothing.

Without a doubt. And FDR and Truman as well for that matter.(Or Bush Sr.) But since when are the victors tried?

What for the atomic bombs?

Meh. Declared war; all bets were off.

If the Germans were able to get the V-3's going and had one, you think New York would have remained. ;)

Agreed. FDR should have been impeached for Pearl Harbor as well, not to mention his secret alliance with the British prior to that. Thanks to that son of a b**** FDR, WWII lasted much longer than it could have, because he refused to support anti-Hitler Germans who genuinely wanted peace (which was a large percentage of them), seeking only "unconditional surrender." And, contrary to popular belief, the A-bomb was not at all necessary. The Japanese had been trying for at least a year to surrender.


Try the "Potsdam conference".....

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-dpl/hd-state/potsdam.htm

One result of the conference was a 26 July joint proclamation by the U.S., Great Britain and China, the three main powers then fighting Japan. This "Potsdam Declaration" described Japan's present perilous condition, gave the terms for her surrender and stated the Allies' intentions concerning her postwar status. It ended with an ultimatum: Japan must immediately agree to unconditionally surrender, or face "prompt and utter destruction".

I am not finding that title......

Original tital "Der Brand-Deutschland im Bombenkrieg 1940-1945" it is a German book by Jörg Friedrich and is getting famous now. I have a Dutch translation. It certainly exist in English. Original publication in 2002 by Propyläen Verlag. People on a US site spoke about it and then I bought my translation.

Think you'll find it with what I found here in my book.

What for the atomic bombs?
What about them?
Meh. Declared war; all bets were off.
Great excuse.

If the Germans were able to get the V-3's going and had one, you think New York would have remained. ;)
Almost sorry that they didn't.

So did Chamberlain.

I never knew that. Thanks! :)

Back to topic, who is your worst?

Agreed. FDR should have been impeached for Pearl Harbor as well, not to mention his secret alliance with the British prior to that. Thanks to that son of a b**** FDR, WWII lasted much longer than it could have, because he refused to support anti-Hitler Germans who genuinely wanted peace (which was a large percentage of them), seeking only "unconditional surrender." And, contrary to popular belief, the A-bomb was not at all necessary. The Japanese had been trying for at least a year to surrender.

You forget the state of Isolationism. FDR wanted to be more involved but the people did not.

Unconditional Surrender? Well look what happened with WW1.

The Japanese goverment may have surrendered but the army was not ready. I saw an article written in 47 and a Japanese officer said they would fight the invasion no matter what. Even the emperor could not have prevented it.

You got dates for the efforts to surrender? I saw an article from the stassi or Rusian archives that the Japanese tried to get word through the only major power they still had an embassy. The USSR. They conviently forgot until they were pretty well done in.

The worst for the Axis was Hitler himself. He took too much of a command over the German Army, micromanaging them. When he was in the army, he only got to a corporal. So who would you rather listen to, him or Gen. William Keital, the Commander-in-Chief of the German High Command?
My least favorite? Whoever commaded US Air Force Phillipines. Even when they knew about Pearl Harbor hours after it happened, as well as an impending attack on the Phillipines, the planes were ordered not to move. They did after the Japanese landed, but by then, it was too late.

What about them?

Great excuse.

Almost sorry that they didn't.

It's a fact.

There is no morality in war.

A Japanese commander once said if they had the bomb they would have used it.

You forget the state of Isolationism. FDR wanted to be more involved but the people did not.

Non-interventionism, not isolationism.

Original tital "Der Brand-Deutschland im Bombenkrieg 1940-1945" it is a German book by Jörg Friedrich and is getting famous now. I have a Dutch translation. It certainly exist in English. Original publication in 2002 by Propyläen Verlag. People on a US site spoke about it and then I bought my translation.

Think you'll find it with what I found here in my book.
Hmmm, yeah. He's taken alot of flak for that book. Cause he dares to show Germans not just as perpetrators but also as victims for a change. Especially those red nazi's from the Anti Fa movement piss me off.

Hmmm, yeah. He's taken alot of flak for that book. Cause he dares to show Germans not just as perpetrators but also as victims for a change. Especially those red nazi's from the Anti Fa movement piss me off.

The Germans WERE victims, I agree. Who the hell could blame them for electing Hitler after all they went through? (Note: I am not condoning Hitler, by the way)

The worst for the Axis was Hitler himself. He took too much of a command over the German Army, micromanaging them. When he was in the army, he only got to a corporal. So who would you rather listen to, him or Gen. William Keital, the Commander-in-Chief of the German High Command?
My least favorite? Whoever commaded US Air Force Phillipines. Even when they knew about Pearl Harbor hours after it happened, as well as an impending attack on the Phillipines, the planes were ordered not to move. They did after the Japanese landed, but by then, it was too late.


I don't consider Hitler as a general. Keitel was indeed "Lakeitel".

I don't consider Hitler as a general. Keitel was indeed "Lakeitel".
He certainly acted like a general. He was obsessed with controlling the military. Did FDR or Winston Churchill act like a nanny for the military? No, because they left it to those they paid to run the military.

It's a fact.
A fact of what?

There is no morality in war.
True. Therefor I don't consider the Allies as the good guys.

A Japanese commander once said if they had the bomb they would have used it.
So? What are you trying to say?

Hmmm, yeah. He's taken alot of flak for that book. Cause he dares to show Germans not just as perpetrators but also as victims for a change. Especially those red nazi's from the Anti Fa movement piss me off.


I found the book very interesting, gives us a lot of facts that we don't know. Like the strafing of women and children by allied youghting planes. It is not an accident but a strategy that killed people on a systematical way. Aso. with the destruction of small villages just because they were not already destructed to test fire storms aso..

It is a must buy for every real interested person that is ready to see what we did too. But compared to Beevor's books, it is a litlle less good writen (lots of facts aso)

Several spectacular failures come to mind. The Greek leader, Papagos, attempted was unwilling to surrender Thracian Greece, but also trusting the Yugoslav Army to hold the line between his Thracian defenses (The Metaxa Line), and his main defensive line (The Aliakmo Line), even after it collapsed in the defense of it's own country.

General Freyberg also springs to thought, the commander of the Crete Garrison, he was fore-warned by Ultra of exactly where and when the Fallschirmjaegar assault would take place, but didn't prepare lines of communication or a proper defense plan. When the paratroopers descended on the island (deprived of it's 17 Hurricanes and Gladiators) he lost control of his troops, even knowing where and in what strength they were coming. He surrendered Malame, even though the Germans were disorganized and being slaughtered, which allowed units of the supporting light armour and regular (actually Mountain) infantry to be flown in to ensure the local conter-attack by the New Zealanders failed. Even after this, he decided to fall back and regroup, but instead of pulling some units off the line and leaving it well-defended, he pulled his best troops, the New Zealanders and regular British battalion, off the line, which shorlty collapsed and his counter-attack failed.

with the destruction of small villages just because they were not already destructed to test fire storms aso..

You can't start a fire storm in a small village, precise requirements of weather, and density are needed for a fire storm to start.

He certainly acted like a general. He was obsessed with controlling the military. Did FDR or Winston Churchill act like a nanny for the military? No, because they left it to those they paid to run the military.


Just want to say that I ask you the worst General, not a Churchill or Hitler (that is to easy) If you have one, please

My least favorite? Whoever commaded US Air Force Phillipines. Even when they knew about Pearl Harbor hours after it happened, as well as an impending attack on the Phillipines, the planes were ordered not to move. They did after the Japanese landed, but by then, it was too late.

MacArthur was responsible for not mobilizing the US Far East Air Force (The largest force of airplanes in the Far East), though lower levels could have at least mobilized it, it ws his responsibility.

Just want to say that I ask you the worst General, not a Churchill or Hitler (that is to easy) If you have one, please
That Gen. Yamashita. But really, what's the meaning of the title "general". Politicians, like Hitler, can play general because they technically outrank them. That's why I think that generals and politicians are, in a way, like nannies for the military. Each can push the military to their whims, and they may have different titles, but not different roles.

That Gen. Yamashita. But really, what's the meaning of the title "general". Politicians, like Hitler, can play general because they technically outrank them. That's why I think that generals and politicians are, in a way, like nannies for the military. Each can push the military to their whims, and they may have different titles, but not different roles.

Yamashita!? For what? His defense of the Philippines lasted until after the war ended, and he oversaw the humiliation of Britain in Malaya.

You can't start a fire storm in a small village, precise requirements of weather, and density are needed for a fire storm to start.


Read the book: Pforzheim had in % more deaths then the famous Hamburg firestorm. In Pforzheim 1 in 3 citizens died.And it was a fire storm.(well explained how they managed with the triangular bacons and then the firebombs, in fact those where small, 2kg. but bombers like the Lancaster could drop 100's of them.)

Read before speaking, I thought the same thing as you but I am better informed now.Let hate not blind you for historical research. A friendly advise.

True. Therefor I don't consider the Allies as the good guys.

So? What are you trying to say?

Of course you don't. You're German.

As to what I am saying. It's fine to moralize the actions of the past, but you really need to talk to the people that lived it. Things change in time. People who don't like what happened; put new spins/facts on the events.

Heck we even have many Southerners who try to convince everybody they were just innocent people minding their own buisness the the great Mongal horde of the North came down and slaughtered them for no reason.

The Bombs were part of the war. Their use can be views as evil but a full invasion of the mainland would have meant the death of way more people.

The war would have gone on much longer because if the bombs were ruled out, a hurricane hit just about the time were we would have been staging for the invasion.

Finally, it's always interesting to hear a German moralizing the actions of the allies in the war! ;)

Yamashita!? For what? His defense of the Philippines lasted until after the war ended, and he oversaw the humiliation of Britain in Malaya.
The Philipines was a bit of a blunder, considering his past accomplishments. Sure, he may have been fighting until the end, but loosing the Philipines cost Japan its independence, and its navy. All thanks to Gen. Yamashita.

Read the book: Pforzheim had in % more deaths then the famous Hamburg firestorm. In Pforzheim 1 in 3 citizens died.And it was a fire storm.(well explained how they managed with the triangular bacons and then the firebombs, in fact those where small, 2kg. but bombers like the Lancaster could drop 100's of them.)

Read before speaking, I thought the same thing as you but I am better informed now.Let hate not blind you for historical research. A friendly advise.

Hate? For..... what? At any rate, I can see how you can level a village with incendiary bombs, but a firestorm? These things can't just happen becuase of a lot of firebombs, it never happened in Berlin becuase the avenues were too wide, they require a high density of flammable materials.

Read the book: Pforzheim had in % more deaths then the famous Hamburg firestorm. In Pforzheim 1 in 3 citizens died.And it was a fire storm.(well explained how they managed with the triangular bacons and then the firebombs, in fact those where small, 2kg. but bombers like the Lancaster could drop 100's of them.)

Read before speaking, I thought the same thing as you but I am better informed now.Let hate not blind you for historical research. A friendly advise.
Well, Pforzheim isn't exactly a village.

Come on, it is not about who did this or that. Who is the most shity WWII General: Percifal!

The Philipines was a bit of a blunder, considering his past accomplishments. Sure, he may have been fighting until the end, but loosing the Philipines cost Japan its independence, and its navy. All thanks to Gen. Yamashita.

Well, I'll agree with you that Japan's Navy was destroyed at the Philippines, but I'm not so sure you can blame that on Yamashita, he was after all, an Army General.

Come on, it is not about who did this or that. Who is the most shity WWII General: Percifal!

What about his commander, Brooke-Popham?

Well, Pforzheim isn't exactly a village.


Hey I was speaking about strafing in villages. Pforzheim was a town then, but still, read the book, specially since you are German, it shows that the allies killed about 600.000 civilians in Germany while the Germans only could kill a few 1000 Londoners and some 100 in Rotterdam.It gives a good inside about the planned war against German civilians.

Please don't react with they killed X persons there or in this camp. Friedrichs book is about "Der Bombenkrieg" and I gave it a fine place aside my other books written by Beevor aso.

Of course you don't. You're German.
That has nothing to do with it.

It's fine to moralize the actions of the past, but you really need to talk to the people that lived it.
Are my grandparents and their sibblings good enough?

People who don't like what happened; put new spins/facts on the events.
God beware that anyone ever dares to question the goodness and altruistic motives of the Allies and their spin on history.


The Bombs were part of the war. Their use can be views as evil but a full invasion of the mainland would have meant the death of way more people.
You mean the nukes on Japan?


Finally, it's always interesting to hear a German moralizing the actions of the allies in the war! ;)
Eeeh..whats that supposed to mean?

Well, I'll agree with you that Japan's Navy was destroyed at the Philippines, but I'm not so sure you can blame that on Yamashita, he was after all, an Army General.
Then what they needed was more coordination, especially then. The IA and IJN actually spied on eachother. This was a life-or-death battle, and Yamashita knew it. He had the credibility to coordinate the army and navy. He didn't. Also, he couldn't hold Manila, despite the advantage of the Baatan Peninsula. He had plenty of time to fortify it even in the months before the battle, unlike in the Americans' case.

Hate? For..... what? At any rate, I can see how you can level a village with incendiary bombs, but a firestorm? These things can't just happen becuase of a lot of firebombs, it never happened in Berlin becuase the avenues were too wide, they require a high density of flammable materials.


No it did not happen in Berlin because of the material of Berlin and the bottom of Berlin: STONE. The avenue thing is only second (but important too). There was no wood in Berlin lik ein medieval old Hamburg.Again , more info in the book (these are generalisations and don't replace 100's of pages of a WWII historian ;) )

Hey I was speaking about strafing in villages. Pforzheim was a town then, but still, read the book, specially since you are German, it shows that the allies killed about 600.000 civilians in Germany while the Germans only could kill a few 1000 Londoners and some 100 in Rotterdam.It gives a good inside about the planned war against German civilians.
Ok. I was just saying that Pforzheim wasn't a village. And I do know that the terror bombing was planned by Churchill. He just didn't want to be the first to bomb civilian targets. When a German bomber overshot it's target and accidentally hit a residential area Chruchill ordered a bombing raid on Berlin. Eventhough that wasn't meant to cause much damage, and it didn't, he knew it would be enough to send Hitler into a frenzy. What it did. So now he finally had an excuse to target German civilians without mercy.

Please don't react with they killed X persons there or in this camp. Friedrichs book is about "Der Bombenkrieg" and I gave it a fine place aside my other books written by Beevor aso.
Don't worry. I won't.

Then what they needed was more coordination, especially then. The IA and IJN actually spied on eachother. This was a life-or-death battle, and Yamashita knew it. He had the credibility to coordinate the army and navy. He didn't. Also, he couldn't hold Manila, despite the advantage of the Baatan Peninsula. He had plenty of time to fortify it even in the months before the battle, unlike in the Americans' case.

Well, he didn't want to hold Manila, he had no advantages to the Americans. They had all the advantage they needed in the plain of Luzon especially around Manila, he had nothing that could stop the American field armies, with full armour, artillery, and support, the Americans were far better at this type of campaign and equipped for it than the Japanese.

Well,
.

Firstly I will leave out Hitler, Mussolini & Hitler [ed. last Hitler should be Himmler] and stick with purely professional soldiers.

Well - this leaves us with a rather short list: Voroshilov, Timoshenko & Percival. Of these, I feel, only Percival can aspire for the title. I don't think that there can be much doubt that Percival failed considerably when looking on the above criteria. He did not have the robustness, the ability to stand the shock of war. Yet I don't think that he is the right candidate for the worst general, for that he took up the post of General Officer Commanding Malaya too late (May 1941) to redeem the failings of British politics during the 1930'ties and far too much was beyond his control. One could question whether any other general could have done much better than prolonged the inevitable (Like the Americans at the Philippines). I suggest reading C. Kinvig: Scapegoat : General Percival of Singapore for a more balanced view on him.

So who was the worst commander of WWII? While the loss of Singapore may have shocked the British and Australians there were plenty of other shocks at time of equal magnitude affecting other nations.

I was thinking of a disaster that shock the whole world. Namely that of the defeat of the French army in May-June 1940, where we find IMHO the worst commander of WWII: Maurice Gamelin. Having finally reached my candidate I'll keep my arguments short.


However as I said in the beginning it is my subjective opinion and you could easily argue for other candidates.




That is what I originaly said

No it did not happen in Berlin because of the material of Berlin and the bottom of Berlin: STONE.

Ok, so I should have also stated it was far more modern than most cities that were burned out.

Again , more info in the book (these are generalisations and don't replace 100's of pages of a WWII historian ;) )

Just becuase I have not written a book doesn't mean I can't discredit what someone interpreted from it. If you were the author I might digress, but you only read it. I don't doubt villages/towns/cities were strafed and bombed and even levelled, but you said a firestorm, which is a phenomenon that only occurred in igh density and flammable cities.

Original tital "Der Brand-Deutschland im Bombenkrieg 1940-1945" it is a German book by Jörg Friedrich and is getting famous now. I have a Dutch translation. It certainly exist in English. Original publication in 2002 by Propyläen Verlag. People on a US site spoke about it and then I bought my translation.

Think you'll find it with what I found here in my book.

Not having much luck. Which site spoke about it?

Well, he didn't want to hold Manila, he had no advantages to the Americans. They had all the advantage they needed in the plain of Luzon especially around Manila, he had nothing that could stop the American field armies, with full armour, artillery, and support, the Americans were far better at this type of campaign and equipped for it than the Japanese.
However, any attack on Manila would require some sort of naval support, or logistics support, but they'd have to land in Manila Harbor. At the Baatan Peninsula, he commanded an incredible chokepoint. Yet he never used it.
There were some advantages, btw, that I could see in holding Manila. Being such a large city, for example, it was easy to "recruit" quite a few locals into the army. Even if they couldn't do much, they'd at least hold Manila until Yamashita finished the Americans elsewhere. They're probably better at urban warfare than either the Japanese or the Americans.

Not having much luck. Which site spoke about it?

I found it by my newspaper. Thought it could help you. You must find articels and discsussions about it at "Feldgrau.com" in the book topic. But, I know for sure you can buy it in the English version since the book, had a lot of pro and contra in the UK.

However, any attack on Manila would require some sort of naval support, or logistics support, but they'd have to land in Manila Harbor. At the Baatan Peninsula, he commanded an incredible chokepoint. Yet he never used it.
There were some advantages, btw, that I could see in holding Manila. Being such a large city, for example, it was easy to "recruit" quite a few locals into the army. Even if they couldn't do much, they'd at least hold Manila until Yamashita finished the Americans elsewhere. They're probably better at urban warfare than either the Japanese or the Americans.
Well, I just found out you're a historian. I hope you're not a military historian, because you automatically win. I know little when it comes to the military.

Well, I just found out you're a historian. I hope you're not a military historian, because you automatically win. I know little when it comes to the military.
Your telling yourself that you automatically win?

Your telling yourself that you automatically win?
No, Von Witzleben. You act like a kid with a grudge against me, sometimes.

Agreed. FDR should have been impeached for Pearl Harbor as well, not to mention his secret alliance with the British prior to that. Thanks to that son of a b**** FDR, WWII lasted much longer than it could have, because he refused to support anti-Hitler Germans who genuinely wanted peace (which was a large percentage of them), seeking only "unconditional surrender." And, contrary to popular belief, the A-bomb was not at all necessary. The Japanese had been trying for at least a year to surrender.

Bull-shit. Dickhead, the Japanese were going to fight to the death. There was a coup (sp?) that almost killed the Emperor, which would have replaced him with someone who would have encouraged fighting to the absolute end. Don't let yourself be educated by the stupid media, I'm guessing thats where this came from. If not I don't know what fool would have told you this.

No, Von Witzleben. You act like a kid with a grudge against me, sometimes.
Well, you did quote yourself.

Well, you did quote yourself.
I meant Sword and Shield. I'm not a historian, and I don't even have a job yet.

Not having much luck. Which site spoke about it?

Black Forrest, I googled this, hopes it helps, but I can not help you were to buy it near you.

www.h-net.org/~german/discuss/ WWII_bombing/WWII-bombing_index.htm - 17k - 8 aug 2004 -

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/history/extermination.htm (don't mind the fake picture of Churchill,I just googled it)

Dose Hittler count? He was an absolute nut who refused to listen to the greatest (in my oppinion) general to walk this earth, Rommel.

Well, I just found out you're a historian. I hope you're not a military historian, because you automatically win. I know little when it comes to the military.

Well, I am not a military historian by direct definition, but I know a more than fair share of the militaries of the past and especially wars. But at any rate, it doesn't mean I automatically win, I've been wrong in the past before. You brought up a fair point I overlooked about coordination between the Imperial Army and Imperial Navy concerning the Philippines (it really was not defended the way it's critical position would warrant). I had my entire firm belief that Russia single-handedly won the Second World War destroyed by a man who never had an education in history, he was simply a man who had been in the British Indian Army and enjoyed reading about WW2.

Dose Hittler count? He was an absolute nut who refused to listen to the greatest (in my oppinion) general to walk this earth, Rommel.

Rommel was not a great general for independent command, under a command he was exceptional, his drive to Abbeville from the Muese was astounding, but he never was more then an exceptional battle mind, not a military mind (things like logistics, manufacturing abilities, strategic long-term thinking).

Well, I am not a military historian by direct definition, but I know a more than fair share of the militaries of the past and especially wars. But at any rate, it doesn't mean I automatically win, I've been wrong in the past before. You brought up a fair point I overlooked about coordination between the Imperial Army and Imperial Navy concerning the Philippines (it really was not defended the way it's critical position would warrant). I had my entire firm belief that Russia single-handedly destroyed by a man who never had an education in history, he was simply a man who had been in the British Indian Army and enjoyed reading about WW2.
Oh, don't flatter me ;). I'm a bit of a history buff, and only being a teen, my relationship with history has just begun. But I do enjoy arguing with historians (a very rare oppritunity for me).
BTW, who are you refering to about Russia? Lech Walesa?

Oh, don't flatter me ;). I'm a bit of a history buff, and only being a teen, my relationship with history has just begun. But I do enjoy arguing with historians (a very rare oppritunity for me).
BTW, who are you refering to about Russia? Lech Walesa?

Whoops, typo, it should read "Russia Single-handedly won the Second World War destroyed by...."

Rommel was not a great general for independent command, under a command he was exceptional, his drive to Abbeville from the Muese was astounding, but he never was more then an exceptional battle mind, not a military mind (things like logistics, manufacturing abilities, strategic long-term thinking).
I have to disagree with the logistic. Since he only had a limited supply in NA, and his supply lines where overstretched and at sea under constant attack by the British, he had to do with what he had. And he did just great. Unless you meant something else with logistic.

Whoops, typo, it should read "Russia Single-handedly won the Second World War destroyed by...."
Oh, okay. That's Zhukov, right? I thought you were veering off topic, for a second.

Lech Walesa?
Lech Walesa is Polish.

Lech Walesa is Polish.
I know. But Sword and Shield originally said something about singlehandedly defeating Russia, before he corrected his mistake. I thought he might've been reffering to him, and Sword and Shield was some form of a revisionist historian.

Oh, okay. That's Zhukov, right? I thought you were veering off topic, for a second.
? Im thinking Sword and Shield means a guy who was in the British Indian Army destroyed Sword and Shield's belief that Russia singlehandedly won WWII.

I have to disagree with the logistic. Since he only had a limited supply in NA, and his supply lines where overstretched and at sea under constant attack by the British, he had to do with what he had. And he did just great. Unless you meant something else with logistic.

That's exactly the problem, he never fully grasped the problems of his supply situation in North Africa. He simply knew the Regia Marina was not keeping him adequately supplied, in a theater where supplies could often mean as much as a division of armour. He knew any attack into Egypt was going to break his tenous supply lines, but he gambled he could reach Alexandria before it affected him. A gamble does not make one a bad leader though, but he also never tried to alleviate his supply situation by reducing his fuel usage.

Once he left North Africa, he was given command again in France, where he again showed he was not a great military mind in command. He had the right ideas for defense, but he demanded too much of the French railway network, which was almost wholly destroyed by the RAF Bomber Command and USAAF 8th and 9th Air Forces attack to weaken it in preperation for Overlord. He demanded of it to not only supply an ungodly amount of material for the Atlantic Wall (which should've been sent in 1942), but also that it be able to quickly move armour and men to the beach head.

? Im thinking Sword and Shield means a guy who was in the British Indian Army destroyed Sword and Shield's belief that Russia singlehandedly won WWII.

Yes, that was what I was trying to say and somehow skipped ahead of myself in my typing.

I know. But Sword and Shield originally said something about singlehandedly defeating Russia, before he corrected his mistake. I thought he might've been reffering to him, and Sword and Shield was some form of a revisionist historian.
Well, Lech Walesa was born in 1943. So he never participated in the war. Buthe was the first democratic elected president of Poland.

Furthermore on the subject of Rommel, he also never gave the supply problems of North Africa the appreciation they deserved. He looked at things as how he could beat the British with the forces available, but never how he could beat the British while maintaining his supply and didn't plan future offensives with his logistical situation in mind (almost as if he was planning on the British losing Malta as a base, which they pretty much did for a few desperate months).

? Im thinking Sword and Shield means a guy who was in the British Indian Army destroyed Sword and Shield's belief that Russia singlehandedly won WWII.
Let's not argue on the Sword and Shield and Lech Walesa. It's gotten me dazed and confused.

I vote for, whatever their names are, the Italian generals in charge of the Greek and North African campaign.

I don't know about greece but north african was handled by a very famous germany general, can't recall his name tho.

That's exactly the problem, he never fully grasped the problems of his supply situation in North Africa. He simply knew the Regia Marina was not keeping him adequately supplied, in a theater where supplies could often mean as much as a division of armour. He knew any attack into Egypt was going to break his tenous supply lines, but he gambled he could reach Alexandria before it affected him. A gamble does not make one a bad leader though, but he also never tried to alleviate his supply situation by reducing his fuel usage.
I'm not so sure about that. There was simply nothing he could do about it. So his best option was a quik victory while he still had the upper hand.
And how do you propose he should reduce fuel consumption? Having his men get out and push?


Once he left North Africa, he was given command again in France, where he again showed he was not a great military mind in command. He had the right ideas for defense, but he demanded too much of the French railway network, which was almost wholly destroyed by the RAF Bomber Command and USAAF 8th and 9th Air Forces attack to weaken it in preperation for Overlord. He demanded of it to not only supply an ungodly amount of material for the Atlantic Wall (which should've been sent in 1942), but also that it be able to quickly move armour and men to the beach head.
He wasn't the architect of the wall. And again I ask you what else should he do? Of course he demanded that the railways would be able to quikly send troops and material to where they were needed. That doesn't make him a weak commander.

Well, Lech Walesa was born in 1943. So he never participated in the war. Buthe was the first democratic elected president of Poland.
That young?! I met him in person once, at a college function that he was a guest speaker at. He looked much older than that.

I'm not so sure about that. There was simply nothing he could do about it. So his best option was a quik victory while he still had the upper hand.
And how do you propose he should reduce fuel consumption? Having his men get out and push?

The Germans and Italians took a lot of liberty with their trucks and tanks in moving about that they should not have.


He wasn't the architect of the wall. And again I ask you what else should he do? Of course he demanded that the railways would be able to quikly send troops and material to where they were needed. That doesn't make him a weak commander.

Yes, becuase he did not take into account the state of the French railway system, he demanded the maximum of both material and troop transport, instead of what he thought a necessary compromise of the two to meet his needs and satisfy the abilities of the railway system.

I don't know about greece but north african was handled by a very famous germany general, can't recall his name tho.
Not at first. The Initial attack was carried out by the Italians. They got as far as 50 km and then their supply lines broke. During their retreat they lost some 130,000 troops. Most of them surrenderd without much of a fight. That was nearly half of their entire army in North Africa. Rommel and the Afrika Korps where send there to prevent a complete Italian collapse.

Ignore this

Ignore this

Wow, I must not only be typing like an idiot, but reading like one too, von Witzleben was right, I horribly mis-read that post to be the other way around, got some editing to do, sorry about that von Witzleben.

sorry about that von Witzleben.
See? I do know a thing or 2. ;)

I don't know about greece but north african was handled by a very famous germany general, can't recall his name tho.

The initial commander of the North African campaign was Field Marshal Rudolfo Graziani, and he was routed by the British under O'Conner.

The Italian CinC of the Greek campaign was Visconti Prasca

Prasca was replaced by General Soddu shortly after the Italian command in greece was divided. For who replaced Graziani as the for all purposes commander in North Africa refer to von Witzleben's post.

The initial commander of the North African campaign was Field Marshal Rudolfo Graziani, and he was routed by the British under O'Conner.

The Italian CinC of the Greek campaign was Visconti Prasca
Ah thanks. Those 2 were my nominees as worst generals of ww2.

Hey I was speaking about strafing in villages. Pforzheim was a town then, but still, read the book, specially since you are German, it shows that the allies killed about 600.000 civilians in Germany while the Germans only could kill a few 1000 Londoners and some 100 in Rotterdam.It gives a good inside about the planned war against German civilians.

Please don't react with they killed X persons there or in this camp. Friedrichs book is about "Der Bombenkrieg" and I gave it a fine place aside my other books written by Beevor aso.

A few thousand...30 thousand Londoners died during the Blitz, thousands more from V-2s... ! Nearly 50,000 died in Rotterdam...

In Poland by God...they killed 17% of the population, Warsaw's population went from 2 million from the start of the war, to two-hundred thousand when the Russians rolled in.

The Germans murdered 26 MILLION Soviet citizens, overwhelmingly civilians.... Out of 5.2 Red Army soldiers captured... only 1.8 million survived German captivity.

Germany should have been wiped off the map at the end of World War II for its sins...for it was the average people who were supporting hitler, who did nothing about the death camps or anti-semitism, who's sons and fathers committed unspeakable acts in Russia and Eastern Europe... Germany was and always will be the villain of that war...they can never be fully forgiven.

Nearly 50,000 died in Rotterdam...

Where did you get this figure from. Only 900 were killed in the bombing of Rotterdam, 78,000 people were made homeless, neither of these figures come close to yours.

Oh, as for the worst generals..

Field Marshall Von Paulus at Stalingrad was more of a staff officer than commander...and during the most crucial time during Operation Uranus..the Russian encirclement of the 6th Army, he did nothing. Granted, the Germans did not see the troop buildups and overall operational plan of a vast encirclement via pincers... he kept his remaining Panzer's in the city, instead of pulling them back to counter the dangers to his flanks that were increasingly obvious before it was too late. Also, anyone looking at a map of the front lines after the encirclement should have known that the 6th army was beyond relief unless it tried to break out itself while still having the armor and manpower to attempt it...instead he sat tight and believed Goering's wild notion of resupply via air until the shattered army group could launch a winter offensive 200 miles to the city. He had 250,000 men and let them whittle down without ever moving, before realizing that they'd never be relieved...and by then it was too late.


As for World War I

Samsonov and a few of his corps Commanders at Tannenberg made some pretty spectacular blunders, even though their men when led by competant generals, actually fought the Germans to a standstill...and Marto's men managed to score significant local successes...they were still advancing and winning fights when they realized that they're flank corps were no more and they were utterly surrounded. Thus the best units and men in that army were completely netted.

Where did you get this figure from. Only 900 were killed in the bombing of Rotterdam, 78,000 people were made homeless, neither of these figures come close to yours.

Wait maybe I'm thinking warsaw at the outset...sorry...my blunder... I was probably thinking over 50,000 homeless... stupid me

That figure is wrong, I admit that... but the others are accurate...according to Antony Beevor in Stalingrad and the Fall of Berlin (for the eastern european statistics) and the BBC for the British ones...

Wait maybe I'm thinking warsaw at the outset...sorry...my blunder... I was probably thinking over 50,000 homeless... stupid me

That figure is wrong, I admit that... but the others are accurate...according to Antony Beevor in Stalingrad and the Fall of Berlin (for the eastern european statistics) and the BBC for the British ones...

Your British ones are, total casualties for the bombing campaign Germany mounted against Britain totalled to 60,595 killed (29,890 from London), 86,182 wounded (50,507 from London).

On the Allied side, I'll go with Voroshilov. Being fair, it should be mentioned that Stalin's great idea of purging the army and giving control to his "yes" men almost cost Russia the war. I was reading the other day that the pre-purge Red Army Commander, Tukachevsky (spelling?), was almost at par with Guderian's concepts of mobility, but his plans were lost after the purge, even when the Finland operation was questioning overall Red Army strategy. No. 2 is most definitively Percival.

On the Axis side? I dunno.... Goering seemed to be a bad Luftwaffe commander, but he did command Von Richtofen's (the Red Baron) unit at the end of WWI, he had a notion of what an air unit was. I'll personally go with Von Keitel and his "brilliant career" (on the other side, very few people got the priviliedge of a cool nickname from Von Rundstendt).

I believe Ike is very underrated and the fact is that he handled his VERY difficult job well makes him one of the best, not worst, generals of the war. Frankly, I think Monty and Patton are more overrated than Ike.

On the Allied side, I'll go with Voroshilov. Being fair, it should be mentioned that Stalin's great idea of purging the army and giving control to his "yes" men almost cost Russia the war. I was reading the other day that the pre-purge Red Army Commander, Tukachevsky (spelling?), was almost at par with Guderian's concepts of mobility, but his plans were lost after the purge, even when the Finland operation was questioning overall Red Army strategy. No. 2 is most definitively Percival.

The man was Tukhachevsky, and he was very forward thinking in his ideas. He pioneered the idea of a large and independent tank command, complete with mechanized divisions to support the armour in a blitzkreig like breakthrough. He created Tank Corps (two armoured and one mechanized division) to do this, but after he was purged and replaced by Voroshilov, Voroshilov disbanded all armoured units above brigade strength, apparently for no other reason then it was Tukhachevsky who pioneered this idea. After the Winter War, S.K. Timoshenko (perhaps the most competent of the post-purge leaders), recognized that his fellow post-purge leaders were fools (Kulik opposed the idea of automatic weapons on the basis that soldiers were incapable of handling them, and he halted production of AT and AA guns), began to reform Tukhachevsky's idea of Tank Corps, but Barborossa interrupted this.

On the Axis side? I dunno.... Goering seemed to be a bad Luftwaffe commander, but he did command Von Richtofen's (the Red Baron) unit at the end of WWI, he had a notion of what an air unit was.

He did streamline coordination between Army and Air Force, leading to the amazing effectiveness of the Luftwaffe against the Royal Air Force and Armee De'l Air, and the Allied armies. But after doing this, he did prove an abysmal leader, refusing to advance his arm of the Whermacht and counter new Allied plans and aircraft.

I'll personally go with Von Keitel and his "brilliant career" (on the other side, very few people got the priviliedge of a cool nickname from Von Rundstendt).

His opposition of the Western Offensive wasn't all that out of place, most military leaders were against it. His opposition to Barborassa was misplaced, it should have in fact been launched earlier. Unless you count political reasons, I'm not sure whether he can be counted as the worst of the Axis generals.

I believe Ike is very underrated and the fact is that he handled his VERY difficult job well makes him one of the best, not worst, generals of the war. Frankly, I think Monty and Patton are more overrated than Ike.

I agree on the Monty and Patton point, I'm not sure if Ike is underrated however, his military record is overrated, but I do agree that his ability to coordinate and streamline inter-allied operations and cut down on argument is underrated.

Goring should be condemned for not doing enough. Himmler? He was never a general. But - from a fascist perspective - he deserves great credit for building the Waffen SS into the most formidable fighting force of WW2.

I don't think the Waffen SS was the most formidable fighting force of World War 2, unless you go down to very basic levels like platoons, in which case I think the SAS or Rangers give them a run for their money.

They were the best warriors of the war - the elite SS divisions were the spearhead of all the famous victories.

The feldheer was the leading force in almost every campaign, SS units were not elite in anything but uniforms and esprit d'corps either. The newest equipment was given to feldheer units first, the Tiger, Panther, Jagdpanther, jagdpanzer were all issued to Heer units first, and always given to them before SS units.

And in the end, they were the troops who held up, at enormous cost, the Russian advance in 1944-45, resulting in most of Germany being spared the tyranny of communism. Himmler may not have been a general, but he deserves credit for that.

The Russians deserve credit for this as well, they always outran their supply lines and never took care to keep local supply routes open, so after Bagration they really couldn't go anywhere for many months as they reestablished their supply lines. And after their advance to the Oder, a similar situation, plus the river itself really held them up.

Hmmm... one of the heer's elite divisions would probably be the Gross Deutschland Division? You should try reading Guy Sajer's "The Forgotten Soldier". Sajer was in the Gross Deutschland from '42 until the End. The Waffen SS was always there to clean up what the Gross Deutschland couldn't handle in the latter stages of the war...

And this just makes them grueling fighters, still not the elite in anything that term means in any western army (meaning they get the best equipment and training).

And yes, the SS was always ahead of the heer in the Blitzkrieg, just as they always saved the heer during the later retreats. So far ahead in France in 1940 that they would get cut off from their supply lines...

The 2nd SS advanced to Rotterdam, not many allied forces opposed them, and then turned back a minor allied counter-attack. The outrun of supply lines you speak of is becuase they arrived in France after the fall of Paris, and participated in the run across the Loire towards Bordeaux, they barely faced any organized resistance.

They were not just soldiers, they were political warriors as well. They didn't fight because they were ordered to, they fought for an ideology, and a superior one at that. No one can fight for democracy. That doesn't inspire anything but banality. But a man can fight for fascism. And the SS did, and did it very well.

Democracy inspires the entire army to fight, the Heer fought for country, the Waffen-SS for the "ideals" of Nazism, the British Army fought to both defend their country and ideology, as did the US Army, French, etc. in democracies the two are fused together, I'd prefer that over your SS.

So did Chamberlain. His administration was approached as early as 1938 by a group of German officers pleading for an intervention while the Wehrmacht was still unprepaired. But at that time the West considerd Hitler as a champion against bolsjewism and did nothing.

think there was a bit more to it than that. Maybe they were hoping for a peaceful solution? Remember they'd all just gone through a very nasty war.

Also hitler was very clever at the time. Nationalism was very strong and he only took territory that could be considered german, until poland of course

think there was a bit more to it than that. Maybe they were hoping for a peaceful solution? Remember they'd all just gone through a very nasty war.
Well, yeah. Why do you think the generals pleaded for an intervention?

Also hitler was very clever at the time. Nationalism was very strong and he only took territory that could be considered german, until poland of course
You consider the whole of Czecho Slowakia German? Cause he didn't just took Sudetenland. Which was the land Britain and France for all inetents and purposes gave to him. And if you think he took only German land, that same logic can be applied to Poland. Danzig, Poznan, West Prussia, upper or lower Silesia (I always get those 2 mixed up).

Well, yeah. Why do you think the generals pleaded for an intervention?

You consider the whole of Czecho Slowakia German? Cause he didn't just took Sudetenland. Which was the land Britain and France for all inetents and purposes gave to him. And if you think he took only German land, that same logic can be applied to Poland. Danzig, Poznan, West Prussia, upper or lower Silesia (I always get those 2 mixed up).

No I did specify that poland was not german. Prussia, had been until the end of the war. They were the leading force that had united germany into one nation (prior to WWI). The chek bit (sorry spelling) he argued was a majority german. That north west bit. That was his argument. Historicallt most of those lands were also part of a german speaking kingdom at one point or another.

sorry guys, I realise this is not the topic of the thread....

No I did specify that poland was not german. Prussia, had been until the end of the war. They were the leading force that had united germany into one nation (prior to WWI). The chek bit (sorry spelling) he argued was a majority german. That north west bit. That was his argument. Historicallt most of those lands were also part of a german speaking kingdom at one point or another.

That was his argument for the Sudetenland, his argument for Bohemia and Moravia (the areas of Czech control he wasn't allotted at Munich), was that he was "protecting" the Czech majority of that region, and stabilizing it by creating Slovakia.