Worst Commanders in History

merocaine

New Member
You totally misunderstood me, I said totalitarianism was'ent the reason they fought badly, not that they werent totalitarian states.
Althought now that I think about it, they seem more authoritarian military dictatorships, they controlled the public levers of power rather than seeking to control the private beliefs of there citizens. Perhaps your making the same mistake as Condi rice when she classes the Islamic Republic of Iran Totalitarian.

Please read my posts before commenting.
back at you baby

All the parties involved had their own remarkble men, tho I'd have to say overall we Yanks had the most. When you look at Land, sea, and air, we Yanks had the best overall.
Everyone thinks they have the best looking wife
 
Last edited:

Rich

Member
You dont think the Republic of Iran seeks to control the private beliefs of their citizens? And authoritarian power that severely limits the freedoms of expressions is "seeking to control the private beliefs of their citizens". Why else would a educated, accomplished, Christian, nation like Germany follow a madman like Hitler? People believe what they hear in the media and when that media is state controlled then the Govt. is trying to control public opinion, both private and public.

My comments about Yank commanders were made in context of land, sea, and air operations. If I had to narrow it to strictly tank warfare I'd probably have given the edge to German and Soviet commanders, most of all Soviet.

I dont have time to get into this more now.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Rich, sorry, but I do not agree. US Commanders at sea in the Far East maybe (Nimitz et al), but not against Germany, the Battle for the Atlantic (longest single campaign of the war) was largely won by RN / Canadian's at different command levels, not the USN! Name me one major surface engagement between the Germans and US Navy at sea in WWII?

As for Air battle over Europe, why US commanders? Please provide evidence comparing and contrasting RAF, Luftwaffe and US Airforce commanders, and why the USAF / Army Airforce Commanders come out on top!
 

merocaine

New Member
You dont think the Republic of Iran seeks to control the private beliefs of their citizens? And authoritarian power that severely limits the freedoms of expressions is "seeking to control the private beliefs of their citizens". Why else would a educated, accomplished, Christian, nation like Germany follow a madman like Hitler? People believe what they hear in the media and when that media is state controlled then the Govt. is trying to control public opinion, both private and public.
I was applying whats called the kirkpatrick doctrine. Where you draw a line between a goverment which just controls the public levers of power and one which also controls all aspects of a persons private existance. In Cold war terms this allowed Regans goverment to aid Authoritarian states which were fighting against the spread of totaliatianism.

So on one side you have Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, North Korea, and to a lesser extent Nazi Germany. On the other you have Authorianian Dictatorships like Pinochets Chili, Francos Spain, Nassers Ejypt, and Theocracies like Iran. The difference is in Authoriaian country, as long as you dont threathan the staus quo politcaly, you are left alone, which is why jews and Christians can still worship in Iran(they are not forced to convert to the state religion) , there are still different political parties, you can pretty much do as you like as long as you dont flaunt it.
This would all be impossible in a Totalitarian State.
 

martywelsh

New Member
worst commander

well that has to be clark who's greed for glory in italy by going for rome instead of cutting of german retreat prolonged that conflict and cost numerous british,american,indian,french,polish,and all the other allied forces a lot more needless casualties
 

merocaine

New Member
aye the Italian campain was a disaster, Clark was a commander with a very limited imagination. But it has to be said that Local allied commanders repeatedly feed there troops into engagments in piecemeal fashion, and were according chewed up one by one.
The Free French forces made good progress and there troops were well suited to the mountainous conditions, they had the chance to bypass the winter line but were denied reinforcement. At this time a more skillfull deployment of reserves could have turned the battle, but then I think Clark had to oversee the Ansio beachead too.

Nepolean said Italy is a boot, and should be entered from the top!
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
aye the Italian campain was a disaster, Clark was a commander with a very limited imagination. But it has to be said that Local allied commanders repeatedly feed there troops into engagments in piecemeal fashion, and were according chewed up one by one.
The Free French forces made good progress and there troops were well suited to the mountainous conditions, they had the chance to bypass the winter line but were denied reinforcement. At this time a more skillfull deployment of reserves could have turned the battle, but then I think Clark had to oversee the Ansio beachead too.

Nepolean said Italy is a boot, and should be entered from the top!
Italy was a pointless waste of a campaign, led by poor commanders. The 5th and 8th armies, and Clarke Leese & Alexander were unimaginative and could not adapt to the terrain. large armoured formations and set piece attacks against defnsive positions that strong in terrain that bad was beyonde stupid. Your right the Free French morrocan light infantry was a perfect unit for the theater and wasnt utilised by allied command. Stupidity!!!
 

merocaine

New Member
It was a great campain to read about though, due to all the different nations involved, algerians, americans, canadians, kiwi's, germans brits, neapalise, indians, morrocans, it's quite amazing!
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Churchill pushed the Americans hard to initiate the Italian campaign because he already suspected Russia was going to annex all territories it occupied. His original aim was for the Allies to drive up through Italy, Balkans, Austria to Germany driving a wedge between the Russians and Western Europe. France would then be liberated from the East not the West. His belief was once Germany falls the occupying troops in France would lose the will to fight.

Pressure from the exiled free-French Government, combined with the difficult fighting in Italy changed the invasion focus to the beaches of Normandy. Should Churchill’s idea have been taken up we may not have witnessed a Soviet controlled East Germany. However the route to Germany via Italy, is from a terrain perspective far more difficult and would have resulted in greater losses per foot of ground taken.

Unfortunately Roosevelt never really distrusted Stalin to the same degree as Churchill, which comes out strongly in the latter’s memoirs. Churchill considered Roosevelt to be very naïve, trusting Stalin to keep his word following the final armistice, which proved a costly mistake.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Well the one concellation of the Norway campaign is the RN sunk the majority of Germany's destroyer fleet leaving them with just nine! Adding to their woes when planning for operation sealion.

Churchill may not have been the best military thinker, but he certainly was a savvy bastard. I doubt few other characters could have pulled off what he did from 39 through to 45.

Following Churchill quote, still brings a smile to my face:

"Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop to Churchill, Pre-WWII: "If there's another war in Europe, the Italians will be on our side." Churchill to Ribbentrop: "Seems only fair... we had them last time."":D
 

Manfred

New Member
Most accurate forcast of things to come- "THere is an 80-90% chance of a really big mess." -Herman Goering, 1938
 

Rich

Member
Rich, sorry, but I do not agree. US Commanders at sea in the Far East maybe (Nimitz et al), but not against Germany, the Battle for the Atlantic (longest single campaign of the war) was largely won by RN / Canadian's at different command levels, not the USN! Name me one major surface engagement between the Germans and US Navy at sea in WWII?

As for Air battle over Europe, why US commanders? Please provide evidence comparing and contrasting RAF, Luftwaffe and US Airforce commanders, and why the USAF / Army Airforce Commanders come out on top!
The battle of the Atlantic was a pea shoot compared to taking on the IJN. Even still both the Yank and Brit navies opened the campaign with compounded stupidity, and dont forget "The Happy Time" was before the US enterred the war.

To their credit the Brits changed tactics and used technology very well. Still, in terms of scope and overall vision, Yank naval commanders accomplished the most in WW-ll. By the end of it we had the most dominating navy the world had ever seen. And still do. And will for the rest of our lifetimes.

Strange how still Yank U-boat commanders in the Pacific get so little credit compared to German ones.

Another fine subject, and again I have to jump in the shower and get to work. Hopefully we will continue this.
 

metro

New Member
Unfortunately Roosevelt never really distrusted Stalin to the same degree as Churchill, which comes out strongly in the latter’s memoirs. Churchill considered Roosevelt to be very naïve, trusting Stalin to keep his word following the final armistice, which proved a costly mistake.
Nobody: Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FDR, trusted each other. Their have been good programs recently on WWII, specifically detailing each leader's thinking before/during/after the war. The series is well researched, using released docments and interviews with people aroud the leaders. They all tried to make back-door "deals" with each other, but it was all about getting leverage on someone else. FDR didn't trust Stalin, but he wasn't going to start fighting the Russians. Churchill didn't put up much of a protest with Stalin's approach to Poland. Instead of fighting with a country (or giving them arms) that was actually fighting back against Germany, Stalin used some interesting military tactics against the Polish. FDR didn't trust Stalin a bit, two nukes were dropped on Japan in order to not only end the war with Japan, but to keep Stalin's ambitions in check.
 

metro

New Member
RE: War Powers Act (talked about earlier in thread)

It's pretty much a joke. Clinton avoided congress when going into Bosnia (congress was against it).
I'm not sure what launching cruise missiles at countries "is." An act of war needed to be approved by congress, or something else that doesn't ever need to be taken to congress as long as it's just a few day of sending a message.

Bush got congrssional approval-- that's why all the Democrat's are saying stuff like, "When I voted to send the troops to Iraq, I thought Bush would have been smart enough to not go to war" (crazy american politics).

RE: Powell
He was put in the State Department (Sec. of State) because he knew the people/leaders in the ME better than anyone (from his experiene in GWI).

I agree that allowing Civilian Comanders (President, Congress) to essentially run a war when they've had no experience, is plain stupid. However, Generals Gone Wild isn't a good idea either as there are political consequencs.

Using Clinton as a horrible commander, I think is fair (I have no love for Bush). As a "hyper-power" during the time, Clinton was so ignorant regarding foriegn policy--or just didn't care--he is very much responsible for not at least trying to put a stop to the threat everyone is facing today. Clinton, a Lawyer, made a case about the meanng of "is." Now, forget all the chances he had to kill UBL and others, he wouldn't even take UBL when he was being handed to us, "We can't bring a court case against him." Wow, we've tried several people in abstentia, UBL couldn't be charged in person for everything from, retreating from somalia because of black hawk down (after not allowing the military to have the aircraft the wanted). The 1st World Trade Center Bombing. Ramzi Youseff was put in jail. He's KSM's nephew, and KSM was UBL's operational planner. Could go on and on. Instead of having UBL killed, before or after his "Declaration of War on all americans," Clinton left him alone. He went into Bosnia, where instead of nation buiding, he helped do quite the opposite.

Today, Bosnia/Albania is almost like Afghanistan during Clinton's time as Commander and Chief.

However, Clinton did launch some $40M of tomahawks at a empty playground in Afghanistan and a (whatever) building in sudan.

Clinton saw Iraq as such a threat that the "Iraqi Regime Change" Act in 1998. That became American Policy. However, Clinton tried to change the Regime by launching more of his favorite cruise missiles, in the middle of the night, at the Ministry of Interior Building. I don't think killing janitors was a huge blow to Sadaam!?

Clinton the lawyer, also knew that Iran was behind the Khobar Tower bombings, he knew the people's names. However, he said and did nothing. The statute of limitations would have run out if Ashcroft (I'm not a fan), hadn't brought charges against the people in the first week of Bush's term. Again, Clinton did nothing.

Clinton instead of taking UBL out, one way or another, Clinton wanted peace in the world so he looked for the person who wanted it as much as him, Arafat. The guy who Clinton had visit the White House more than any other leader. Talk about a leader reading another person... Nice Job President of the Free world! Clinton turned a person most deemed a forefather of "terrorism" into a nobel prize winner. No Peace was ever made, but I'm not sure any other leader could have pulled that one off. Did Clinton, a person so many described a "brilliant," think he could turn Arafat into a State's Man? Did Clinton think this guy could actually spend the majority of is life preaching "revolution" and all of a sudden say, "everything I had told eveyone was a joke, now [that there's no peace and more violence] I'm a man of peace and want to be the most transparent and best leader in the world"? Anyway, the man of peace needed a 10,000 person police department (that's the agreement he signed anyway), so clinton armed them and sent the CIA to train them. All of a sudden, Arafat needed 50,000 people in is police force (larger than New York, and way more heavily armned). Today, there are 80,000-90,000 people registered as members of the PA police force. This does not include any of Hamas.
As we see today, Clinton did an excellent job in creating Pieces. Clinton's forced Peace Process, worked to split the Palestinians into Pieces.

I'm not sure if Clinton thinks he was successful, as everyone but him got a "Peace Prize." But in truth, if you listen to those in Gaza today who have said, "We're glad Israel has finally stated using helicopters [not american aircraft desingned to kill us] to target Hamas, as it has cleared all of the streets and helps stop some of the violence. We miss living our lives under Israeli occupation." Abbas says the same thing, "We're on the brink of Civil War, times have never been worse. Palestinians would like to go back to life under Israeli or Jordanian rule." I'd say perhaps the Palestinans, today, might rather have peace with Israel, but Clinton's failure in reading a man he met so man times has not only made peace between Israel and the Palestinians impossible, he made Peace among the Palestinians impossible... actually a complete disastor.

Clinton also created a coup in Israel, and this is a country that's a Democratic American Ally. He actually broke american law, pretty overtly.
But the story starts when Clinton was running for President the first time. At that time the PM of Great Britain was John Major. During the campaign, Major was asked who he prefered as the next american President? PM Major didn't endorce anyone but Bush1 was still President and Major said something like, "I'm know President Bush and get along well with him. I think he's made for fine President. But these are Americans elections for the amrican people. I don't vote."
Clinton heard this and told PM Major, that "The US and Britain have a special relationship and are examples to the free world, this shouldn't be ruined by a Prime Minister who wants to get involved in american politics. My advice is that he needs to stay the hell out of our democracy."

Then when Clinton was President in his second term, the PM at one time was Netanyahu. He wouldn't give in to just giving things away, for the promise of security. Netanyahu wanted a slower process of reciprocity. Clinton didn't want his "Peace Process" to be slowed down and by a man who speaks better english, graduated from better schools and instead of doging the draft, Netanyahu fought in the special forces for his country, our Commander Chief, the "Genius of all trade, President Clinton."
So Clinton Finds someone who will do as he wishes if elected PM in Israel--Ehud Barak. So how does Clinton get this guy in office? Unlike Clinton's disgust for John Major's answer to a question, and the advice Clinton gave him, Clinton seemed to have completely forgot that whole thing. Clinton decided to sent his 3 top (paid) political consulttants (James Carville qnd the likes) and have them run Barak's campaign. "Special relationship"?
"Staying out of another democratic ally's politics"? It wasn't just statements by Cinton, he actually sent people on his payroll to Israel to run Barak's campaign (which was funded in most part by Clinton Friend's) to defeat a democratically elected PM of an ally!?!? That's against american law!
Well, Clinton as always did what he knew was right in the ME because of his extensive expertise. Barak was a total failure for Israel. But our Commander an Chief knew best, and Clinton and Barak went as far with Arafat as Clinton did 7 years earlier.

Our Commander and Chief, completely ignored the terror in front of his face and its growth around the world. Clinton's complete lack of undersanding of the Middle East, yet, maintainng his "omnicient" posture to the world, showed everyone that, Terrorism works and the US doesn't even recognize it, the US rewards it. Clinton, somehow just couldn't work over a guy he knew so well, Arafat, even though Clinton got him land for nothng. Clinton armed Arafat to the teeth and had the CIA train his "Police Force" and funded him like crazy [though nobody can account for where the money kept going]. As in Bosnia, our Comaander and Chief Prsident Clinton, got more Pieces and nothing resembling Peace.

When it comes to the Russians, Clinton and Gore, who played huge rolls in establishing, a new democracy in Russia, a better economy in Russia, as well as a completely new relations with Russia in which we would have a "Special Relationship." To make this as short as possible, I'll use bullets to point out a few things about how The Commander and Chief was going to do all of this with Russia and why they'd love us.

-In the early 1990's Clinton and Congress knew that Russia was sellin Balistic Missile technology to Iran.
-This alone is aginst American laws in the sens that sanctions would be put on the country or companies that have sold "Dual-Use Tech," to Iran.
Since many Companies (especially defense companies) are at least partly state owned. Regardless, companies don't want to hur their relations with the US our their country's.
-However Clinton convinced Congress who was pissed over Russia and Iran, not to bring sanctions up, because Clinton and Gore were making so much progrss with Russia. The continued given reason, everytime Russia was confronted with evidence about their dealngs, was "Arms control? Export Controls? We have no idea what that is, you're supposed teach us so this doesn't happen and we can do it correctly." [And I have a bridge to sell u in NY].
-If one reads the congressional records you can see the joke that went on for Clinton's entire term. Congress ha to finally pass another Bill specifically naming Iran and Russia--which Clinton and Gore pleaded that it wouldn't be brought to the floor." But by 1997-'98 Congress was sick of it, even though Our Commander had made another reat read with the Russians.
-The bill from congress was tough and had only one out clause; there's a Presidential waiver that can be used if their is a "Specific and imminent threat to the Security of the United States."
-Well a company in France had a $5B "energy package" for Iran, but they weren't going to go through with selling to Iran because of American Law.
-For some unbelievable reason, our Commander and Chief, thought that a $5B "energy package" NOT being sold to Iran, would harm the Security of the US. So Clinton used the Presidential waiver and allowed the "energy package" to be sold to Iran. Now, whose security interest is this in?
-Russia never stopped working/sellng to Iran, throughout Clinton's entire two terms of insurances. Iran and Russia, along with other just became more bold about their actions.
-Clinton and Gore, said they were very succesfull with the Russian's and there's a "great man waiting in the wings."

The Hyper-Power Commander and Chief!

-To top it off with one final note on Clnton and how he prepared s for today, was described as one of hs many succeses.

-Clinton left the country with a "large surplus."
-Well, it had nothing to do with the Commander doing anything right, like making US companies on the Exchanges, to keep REAL BOOKS. Clinton didn't cach that or want to prosecute it either.
-Cinton was a true Genius by thinking long term to get us that surplus. He cut military spending to it's lowest point %/GDP since WWII. But that wasn't enough, he cut the military by at least a third. The Commander of our military, who recognized no threats, decimated our military in less than a decade.

-This Commander and Chief of the nation, decided Russia wasn't a threat, Terror wasn't a threat (UBL could have been killed or arrested several times), even though UBL declared war on "The Americans, wherever they are."

-Clinton, "A true genius," should definitely be up there with the worst commanders ever. If he had a bit of intelligence, the world would not be in the situation it is today. Neville Chamberln went the apeasement route and never saw WWII coming. Even though Hitler had written a book describng his plan to everyone.
Clinton gets UBL's written Statement and TV Statemen telling everyone what he intends on doing!
Clinton makes another brilliant read, and ignores him. UBL thanks Clinton on his way out with the US Cole. No Response!

-IMO, Clinton will/should go down in history as more then a failure, in the paes of History.:nutkick
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Rich – Give me a break, the battle of the Atlantic had much greater strategic implications than the war at sea against the Japanese. The Atlantic campaign was fought for the very survival of both the UK and Russia, both dependent upon convoys to continue the battle against Germany. Had it been lost the war could have taken a completely different turn, least of which would have been no Normandy invasion.

I’m not just referring to the submarine campaign here either; you have to also include the destruction of Germany’s surface raiders (destroyers, heavy cruisers, pocket battleships). The Atlantic conflict from 1939 – 1945 iinvolved literally thousands of ships and stretched over hundreds of miles, over 100 convoy battles took place and an estimated 1,000 single-ship encounters – some pea shoot!!!!!!
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Rich for your benefit Atlantic – ‘pea-shoot’ statistics (Taken form Canadian military statistics):

German losses

  • 630 U-boats sunk at sea (42% by ships, 40% by aircraft, 6% combined action)
  • 120 U-boats bombed or lost to mines
  • 3 captured
  • 215 scuttled
  • 153 surrendered at the end of the war

Allied losses

  • 2, 750 Merchant ships
  • 175 Warships

In addition to the Atlantic submarine campaign the following major surface raiders were destroyed at sea or in harbour by the RN and allies:

Admiral Sheer (15, 423 tonnes), Scharnhorst (38, 900 tonnes), Bismarck (50, 950 tonnes), Tirpitz (50, 950 tonnes), and numerous less well known cruisers and all bar nine of Germanys destroyer fleet.
 

metro

New Member
Yup, if Iran is attacked in Bush Jnrs term as presidency, he'd be the most mission accomplished president in American history :)
He'd have the most Balls!

Seriously, I understand what you're saying and how most people look at Bush2. As I said, I have no love for the guy, but what I find funny and problematic is how President Clinton didn't do a thing when it came to the security of the USA, and while america was more powerful than ever, he didn't do anything for the security of the world either, h hurt both. Even though the President had the US dripping in money, he "got rid" of the military. Imagine a bank bringing in more money to its vaults, and decreasing protection!??
You can compare Clinton, "one of the most intelligent, well read, "people in history," living at 1600 PA ave. to a guy who lived in a cave with one religious book. Both took their "leadership" positions at almost the exact same time (1992). Who did more with what they had? Between the two, who can say "Mission Accomplished" in court, without commiting purgery?

I blame Bush for a lot of things, but I can't blame him for ingnoring everything!

I wonder if he can claim to be the US president to attack the most number of sovereign countries...
As long as there is there is justification, I rather him be able to claim that, rather than, "The President to allow american sovereignty to be attacked more times without doing anything, than any othe President (whether by 'States/Groups).'"


Unfortunately, in terms of mission accomplishment, Bush Jnr is nowhere near Stalin's record though.
Stalin wasn't term limited and didn't need elections to stay in power...;)

On the lighter side:
Our evil V.P. unintentionally shot his male "friend" in a hunting accident with a shotgun and sent him to the hospital (if it were intentional, there's no doubt the VP could have killed the guy).

President Clinton shot a "Female Friend" in the face, inside the Oval Office. The Female, needed a napkin, not a hospital, before being sent home 2 minutes later.:)
 
Last edited:
Top