Worst "Commander" of WWII?

Ollie Garchy

Active member
Who was the worst "commander" of WWII?

Even defining this question is tough. Is a poor general someone who is just defeated in the operational sense of the word, or does the manner of the defeat count? What if the victor has overwhelming numbers or just extreme luck? Is General "Murphy" (as in Murphy's law) a poor general? Probably, but there must be a list of poor commanders. Anyone know something about this issue?

I can name one moron. Göring. That oaf -- the head of the German airforce -- refused to listen to men like Adolf Galland and made strange decisions that clashed with both his own experience and any rational logic. Göring was a fighter pilot in WWI. He should have understood the importance of local air superiority. Yet, when men like Galland argued for a large expansion of the German fighter wing in 1940 at the expense of the Stukas and tactical bombers, he turned them down. Germany lost the air war, in small part, because of Göring's stand against the fighter arm. Galland was frustrated.
 
I'll second Hermann Goring. Probably the best friend the Allies ever had.

1. He spent most of his time on Vacation and stealing treasures from countries the Nazis occupied than actually at his job.

2. Was primarily responsible for the petty feuds between the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht (Regular German Army). For example insisted that the Fallshirmjagers (Airborne) be under Luftwaffe control instead of under Wehrmacht control. This of course meant that the Fallshirmjagers took orders from him and not Army High Command. Which meant they were out of control, out of communication with the rest of the ground forces.

3. His poisonous relationship was partially responsible for the suicide of the real architect of the Luftwaffe, Ernst Udet.

4. Was responsible for the delay of the German X-Gen Fighters such as the ME-262, the He-163 and the Ta-152.

5. Insisted that the Luftwaffe update obsolete airframes like the Me-109 and the JU-87 despite the fact that they were totally obsolete by 1943. Compared to what the British, US and Russians were rolling off the assembly lines.

6. Played a role (with Hitler) in ending the German strategic bomber program. Relied to much on Medium and Dive bombers. He also hindered progress on German long Range Fighters (which was a costly error during BoB).

7. Lied to Hitler about the Luftwaffe ability to resupply 6th Army at Stalingrad. He didn't even have half that transport planes he needed. Didn't stop him from lying about it though.

Interesting facts I found while I was double checking my facts:

Werner Goring was his nephew who emigrated to the USA. He flew 48 bombing Missions over Germany in a B-17. (His co-pilot had secret orders to shoot him should he try and land in Germany).

Henchz Goring was a cousin living in Poland. He was killed because he refused to abandon his Polish Neighbors who were about to be exterminated by the SS Death Squads.

I Guess the Goring tree did bear a few good fruit...
 
Hi Ollie,

I would say in addition to Goring all the main 'political' chiefs had a strong case for being the worst senior commander. That is Churchill, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler. The removal of any of these from direct military control would have made it far harder for the opposition. Of these, only Stalin eventually handed over military control to his generals. American strategy was relatively sound because Roosevelt largely left the Military situation up to his top commanders, but was unsoundly influenced by Churchill.

Of the more direct Military commanders, the following would have been good contenders

(actually I have changed my mind on the Italians) there are several here including Graziani. However how about General Maleti who got lost inside his own territory, nearly ran out of water and had to abandon the offensive after running out of fuel going round in circles?

Lieutenant General Arthur Percival, with poor defensive preparations, particularly spreading his men too thinly in Malaya.

Major general Fredendall. He was amateurish, and too arrogant with a Hollywood mentality. He lived lavishly rather than getting up to the front line

However, if I had to choose a incompetent military commander (for want of a better name)

Marshal Semyon Budenny, with ideas rooted in the past and little military skill, charging at everything. Effectively a political crony of Stalin which is why he survived the purge

Of course all of these substantially underestimated the enemy
 
Last edited:
I Guess the Goring tree did bear a few good fruit

However it is his younger brother Albert Goering who has recently become even more well known as a humanitarian. He loathed all of Nazism's inhumanity and at the risk of his career, fortune and life, used his name and connections to save many Jews and gentiles.

Albert Goering is credited with many acts of kindness, small and large. Even today survivors remember once he took off his jacket, went down on his knees, and scrubbed a sidewalk together with Jews who were ordered by the Nazis to do so in public as a humiliation.

When Albert was stationed in Bucharest, Rumania, two Nazi officers saw him standing on a balcony and recognized him as the brother of Hermann Goering. They did the Nazi salute 'Heil Hitler' in front of him, but Albert coldly replied 'you can kiss my ass ...'

http://www.auschwitz.dk/Albert.htmrchives
,
 
However, if I had to choose a incompetent military commander (for want of a better name)

Marshal Semyon Budenny, with ideas rooted in the past and little military skill, charging at everything. Effectively a political crony of Stalin which is why he survived the purge

I would have to second Budenny as being well up there as one of the worst, asuuming we are talking about military commanders rather than political leaders. Budenny was responsible for the largest single defeat in history at Kiev in August 1941, where he lost over half a million men. Four entire Soviet Armies were wiped from the field. Part of this calamity was the fault of Stalin, who ordered the city held at all costs. Nonetheless, Budenny was a commander who refused to adapt and change with the times. He was the commander whom Rundstedt commented, "huge moustaches, tiny brains!"
 
Since poor Axis Commanders were good for the United States of America, I'm going to say that Allied General Alexander was, in my opinion, one of the worst commanders of World War II (in a bad way).

The Bombing of Monte Cassino being one of the greatest examples of General Alexander's poor decisions.
 
Since poor Axis Commanders were good for the United States of America, I'm going to say that Allied General Alexander was, in my opinion, one of the worst commanders of World War II (in a bad way).

The Bombing of Monte Cassino being one of the greatest examples of General Alexander's poor decisions.

I think you are being somewhat harsh on Alexander as General Bernard Freyberg should carry the can for having the abbey bombed much as he should have been given the boot for the fiasco on Crete.

However back to topic, I agree with both Perseus and Doppleganger Marshal Semyon Budenny would get my vote as worst commander of WW2
 
Last edited:
I think you are being somewhat harsh on Alexander as General Bernard Freyberg should carry the can for having the abbey bombed much as he should have been given the boot for the fiasco on Crete.

However back to topic, I agree with both Perseus and Doppleganger Marshal Semyon Budenny would get my vote as worst commander of WW2

Wasn't General Freyberg one of yours?
You most likely know more about General Freyberg than I.
I had thought that while General Freyberg wanted to do the deed, along with others, that in the end the decision fell to General Alexander.
 
Wasn't General Freyberg one of yours?
You most likely know more about General Freyberg than I.
I had thought that while General Freyberg wanted to do the deed, along with others, that in the end the decision fell to General Alexander.

Indeed Freyberg was commander of the New Zealand 2nd Division.
Alexander was overall campaign commander but it was Freyberg that lobbied for the monastery's bombing Alexander gave it the go ahead so there is no doubt he has to bear some responsibility just not all.

This is section I scanned from the book CASSINO - The Hollow Victory

On 24 January, French forces attacked north of Monte Cassino to flank the German positions, but it failed. Soon after, British, New Zealand and Indian troops were called in to take the town, but the commander of the New Zealand forces at Cassino, General Bernard Freyberg, did not want to proceed until the abbey was heavily bombed. He suspected the Germans were hiding in the abbey and using it as an observation tower because their artillery fire was extremely accurate. General Clark disagreed, arguing that if the abbey was destroyed that the Germans would turn the ruins into a defensive nest that the Allies would have great difficulty neutralizing. The Allied commander in Italy, British General Harold Alexander, had the authority to approve a bombing and sided with Freyberg. The result became one of the war’s great military blunders.

A surprisingly good book on the topic unless you are a fan of Mark Clark or anti-French then you will hate it.
 
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.
 
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 **** 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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top