WORST Generals of the 20th Century

[Malthus]

This question is as difficult as the "best generals" section -

To qualify as a "worst general", you must not simply be defeated by overwhelming might, be a general ordered to do the impossible by idiot leaders (Pauling at Stalingrad springs to mind) or be an average general defeated by a brilliant general - you must consistantly "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory", losing battles you ought to have won by force of your extreme ineptitude, foolish over-confidence, or wooden-headed refusal to face facts.

So, who qualifies?

 

[Aetius]

Percival in Singapore springs to mind, but the Chinese must have had the worst generals. They were completely incapable of dealing with the Japanese.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Of the entire 20th century or just of WW2?

 

[unmerged(9563)]

I'm trying to think of this one Russian General that was really bad in WWI. He kept on feeding troops into German machine gun pits, ect., even though he knew it wasn't working. Sururov might be his name.... not sure... it was like the Western Front but even worse, because he'd like feed his reserves in too, and let the Germans end up winning.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Are you thinking of Samsonov?

 

[unmerged(9563)]

yeah thats his name. Of course the general / commander I'm talking about might just be some totally unrelated guy and I just got confused.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

The commander of the Austrian Hungarian army in 1914 comes to my mind. He managed to shift his strategic reserve twice, so that it didn't play the possible role in Serbia or Galicia.
The battleplan in Serbia was also very poor, counting to much on the Serbian to defend they capitol.

 

[Montemurro]

Italian general Rodolfo Graziani seems obvious, 300,000 Italians versus 30,000 British soldiers and nearly lost Libya in '41 although most of the British was motorized while the Italians was moving by foot, which was a serious disadvantage in the desert, so you might call the British army superior.

Most of the Italian generals seems to be worth mentioning in this thread though

 

[unmerged(14824)]

I'm trying to think of this one Russian General that was really bad in WWI. He kept on feeding troops into German machine gun pits, ect., even though he knew it wasn't working. Sururov might be his name.... not sure... it was like the Western Front but even worse, because he'd like feed his reserves in too, and let the Germans end up winning.

Actually Samsonov ended up conquering quite large parts of Austria-Hungary in his offensive of 1916, and although he had almost as big casualties as the Austria-Hungarians his offensive was considered a succes.
You be thinking on some other russian general, I can't remember his name, but he lost a battle to the germans in 1914 or 15 (it may be the battle of the Masurian lakes, i'm not sure), an after getting soundly defeated, he wandered around on the battlefield for a day, and ended up shooting himself.

Another lousy russian general (I actually think he was a Field Marshall) was Budjonniy, he was in charge of the defence of Kiev in 1941. He was an old cavalry officer and one of the few old high-ranking officers not purged by Stalin.
In Kiev, he tried to split up the forces defending the city in minor groups, but it only resulted in that they were encircled by the germans, and destroyed one by one. I think he also shot himself after his defeat, but I'm not sure.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Samsonov blew his own brains out in 1914. You're thinking of Brusilov.

 

[unmerged(14824)]

Samsonov blew his own brains out in 1914. You're thinking of Brusilov.

You're right.

I think i'll bang my head against a wall a couple of times....

 

[stnylan]

I'm tempted to say Hitler since he got involved in so many military decisions.

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Just about any swedish general..they were useless anyhow..because we have stayed out of wars since 1809....

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Robert Nivelles probably comes fairly high up the list. Perceval at Singapore (though there was plenty of blame to go round, let's face it). Mark Clark was fairly rough.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

I would agree with Nivelle & Percival, and I also have never been fond of Gamelin. Though it comes right at the cut-off point, I'd also like to suggest Redvers Buller, who completely botched the opening stages of the Boer War, & ensured that that war would be long, drawn-out, & thoroughly damaging to the reputation of the British Empire.

 

[unmerged(11008)]

Originally posted by Top Cat
Samsonov blew his own brains out in 1914. You're thinking of Brusilov.

Correct...the other Russian defeat of 1914 at Masurian Lakes was commanded by Rennenkampf who managed to aviod total diaster.

Admiral Nagumo of the Imperial Japanese Navy should have sat behind a desk.

Stalin's crony General Mehklis was probably the worst of the Soviet lot.

Graziani, Neville, and Perceval, already mentioned, were indeed lousy.

Some Syrian in 1967 and 1973 needs to be on this list.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Wasa
Just about any swedish general..they were useless anyhow..because we have stayed out of wars since 1809....

You're forgetting the vital Swedish contribution to the campaign in Germany in 1813 and Sweden's cruel suppression of Norwegian independence in 1814.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Mads TW
Another lousy russian general (I actually think he was a Field Marshall) was Budjonniy, he was in charge of the defence of Kiev in 1941. He was an old cavalry officer and one of the few old high-ranking officers not purged by Stalin.
In Kiev, he tried to split up the forces defending the city in minor groups, but it only resulted in that they were encircled by the germans, and destroyed one by one. I think he also shot himself after his defeat, but I'm not sure.

Budionny lived till 1973 or something. He is quite notorious for his quote in some late interview in 1960s. Asked what role cavalry will have in next war, he asnwered, without hesitation

- "Decisive!"


Granted, he was quite decent in Polish-Soviet war of 1920, IIRC.

 

[Malthus]

The Egyptian field marshal, Nassir's crony, in command of the Egyptian forces in '67 must be on the list.

The Egyptians seriously outnumbered the Israelis, and although the Israeli first strike against Egypt's air force was devestating and may have assured eventual Israeli victory, such a victory would have been extremely difficult and costly (and indeed may not have been possible) against Egypt's prepared defensive positions ... had this fine fellow (Aziz?) not ordered a precipitate retreat.

Caught in the open desert, outside their prepared positions, the Egyptians were devistated by airpower and harried by armour. "Retreat" became a rout, and then a one-sided slaughter.

There was no excuse for this. Jordan's much smaller army put up a much tougher fight, winning the respect of the Israelis for their bravery and tenacity, even in defeat.

The Egyptian infantryman, though badly lead, was capable of the same level of bravery, but they were denied the chance - because the field marshal lost his nerve.

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
You're forgetting the vital Swedish contribution to the campaign in Germany in 1813 and Sweden's cruel suppression of Norwegian independence in 1814.

We gave them the right to a constitution..that cruel....