Originally Posted by Gator

Well, I'll pass on it, I happen to like General Clark, and will point out that he was in fact correct in regard to the Bombing and its aftermath.

Oddly enough I didn't like him and very nearly nominated him to this thread.
His attitude to the whole Italian campaign was appalling and Anzio alone was a giant cock up, couple that with him putting his own self interests ahead of the rest of the war and I think he would push pretty close to the title of "worst in theatre".

I agree with MontyB, that Clark himself was a poor commander, perhaps he could well be a contender for the wooden spoon.

Clark’s offensive at Anzio was stopped due to his faulty planning and operational mistakes. Along with Lucas, they were content in establishing a defensive perimeter round their beachhead thereby allowing it to become besieged. Partly due to the brilliant planning of Alexander’s chief of staff Major John Harding the German forces gave way on the main front allowing Polish troops to take Monte Cassino. This allowed the reinforced allied forces in the Anzio beachhead to break out with the task of cutting off the 10th army’s retreat and the lines of communication. However, Clarke directed the Anzio forces north west to award himself the prize of Rome, allowing the German army to escape.
(This is mainly Corelli Barnett’s view, but the section ‘Breakout at Anzio and the advance to Rome’ in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino
seems to confirm this)

Regarding his previous battle, Clark was also ready to abandon the American lodgement at Salerno. In fact he had made plans for moving the Americans to the British sector or vice versa which would probably have resulted in carnage due to the difficulty of embarkment and disembarkement on the beaches, on the narrow front. Neither had he discussed this with the appropriate Naval and corps commanders.

Regarding Alexander himself, Montgomery had little regard for him, telling Patton that when he got an order from him that you don’t like just ignore it, "that what I do". Both these commanders were highly subordinate and it was their major failing.

The rating of Generals is subjective.

I notice that even one of General Clark's detractors said he was a more than cabable officer, and that weighs heavy in my opinion.

At the end of World War II, Clark stood with Eisenhower, Generals George S. Patton, and Omar N. Bradley as a leading American commander in the European Theater. While he was much admired by his personal staff, others found him self-seeking, vainglorious, arrogant, and too concerned about gaining publicity. In 1948, his superior, General Jacob L. Devers, chief of Army Field Forces, evaluated Clark as “a cold, distinguished, conceited, selfish, clever, intellectual, resourceful officer. . . . Very ambitious.” The general also noted that Clark “secures excellent results quickly” and gave him a “superior” performance rating.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/generals/mark_clark.asp

Interesting site Gator. Obviously these guys read different books than I do, but I suppose its easy to criticize with hindsight

Custer: Shortly after the war, Custer found himself on the 7th Calvary Regiment fighting in the Souix Wars until the fated ambush at Little Big Horn in 1867. General George Armstrong Custer has long since been a hero in the annals of U.S. military history.

MacArthur: He received the Medal of Honor for Philippine defense preparations and operations was appointed Supreme Allied Commander, Japan, 1945. As a rank of General of the Army made permanent, April 1946, he was designated commander in chief Far East Command 1947
Upon the North Korean invasion of South Korea was designated commander, United Nations Command in the Far East, July, 1950 he was relieved of his command by President Truman, April 1951

Doesn't seem very critical of anyone, however Donald Rumsfeld's biography seems to have been replaced by Chuck Yeager's! I wonder if Bush's will last much longer?

Well, the quote I pulled was Copyrighted to the United States Army.

United States Army people may tend to have a more favorable view in hindsight when dealing with United States Army Commanders.
History is written by the Victors after all.

Perseus

I gotta disagree about Custer. During the Civil War he was a very good cavalry officer. He just made a terrible mistake (several of them) at Little Big Horn. Plenty of good commanders made errors. Rommel decision to attempt an invade Egypt, Admiral Halsey at Leyte Gulf. Grant's assault at the Battle of the Crater.

Speaking of the Civil War. I am surprised nobody has mentioned the inept dunces of the Union Army of the Potomac. McDowell the inept, the over-cautious/somewhat paranoid McCellan, Burnsides a good Corps Commander, but who was WAAY over his head in terms of being an Army Commander.

The South produced some dunces as well Gideon Pillow; John Bell Hood (like Burnsides a Good Division commander, but no sense of leading anything larger than a division, lost every battle he fought.) and Braxton Bragg.

mmarsh

The reason why no-one has mentioned the American civil war is because the question relates to WW2 (perhaps it should be reposted to that forum). I did pick some commanders outside this era to see if there was any bias in the site Gator linked. Anyway since you have got me going on Lieutenant Colonel Custer (he borrowed the rank of General for appearance):

• he graduated 34th out of 34 at West point
• he was instinctive rather than a thinking officer
• he was court marshaled for an abysmal display during General Hancock's Indian reconnaissance, disobeying orders and abandoning his mission to pursue his own ends (in fact perhaps Custer was Clark's idol) leaving two of his men to the mercy of the Indians
• massacred 103 Cheyenne including women and children
• disobeyed Colonel Gibbons instructions before the battle of the Little big horn, "now Custer don't be greedy, wait for us", "No I won't" Custer replied, also refusing any Gatling guns!
• told by his crow scouts not light any campfires to give away his position, and forewarn the Sioux, guess what?
• then came the famous battle itself

Forever the showman, but ideal for Hollywood. If this referred to the worst commander in history he would definitely be a contender

Originally Posted by MontyB

Indeed Freyberg was commander of the New Zealand 2nd Division.

Freyburg is considered a very good divisional commander, his leadership of his division was outstanding during the desert war, but out of his depth as commander of the Allied forces during the Crete campaign.
The main reason Freyberg wanted the monastery bombed was because he was himself lobbied by his junior officers and men to do so, his forces were convinced it was already being used as an OP position.

Originally Posted by redcoat

Freyburg is considered a very good divisional commander, his leadership of his division was outstanding during the desert war, but out of his depth as commander of the Allied forces during the Crete campaign.
The main reason Freyberg wanted the monastery bombed was because he was himself lobbied by his junior officers and men to do so, his forces were convinced it was already being used as an OP position.

But can you give me an example of anything he personally achieved in the desert?
There is little doubt that the 2nd Division distinguished itself in the North Africa and in Italy after Cassino but in the two engagements he was responsible for they failed dismally despite the best efforts of the troops themselves.

I certainly don't rate Freyberg as a bad leader he was very popular amongst the men he led which speaks for itself but I would rate him at best competent in the role he was given.

Originally Posted by Gator

United States Army people may tend to have a more favorable view in hindsight when dealing with United States Army Commanders.
History is written by the Victors after all.

So true! Unfortunate but true.
Except in the case of the Japanese who came second, but have a completely different version of the War taught in their schools. No mention of atrocities like the Rape of Nanking or the Bataan Death March etc.