Bonus points if the war was won despite their incompetence.
>Bonus points if the war was won despite their incompetence
Literally the poster child for your question.
The guy who thought the correct way to approach machine guns was charging them en masse, and that pushed winning offensives (started by others) so far out of logistic support that almost won battles were lost in spite of his underlings like Capello and Diaz begging him to reconsider.
Old Soldiers never die, they just keep getting people killed.
This drunken peasant.
Decided Soviet strategy in the south during winter-spring 1942. The mastermind behind 2nd Kharkov and organizer of the defence of Crimea during during Operation Bustard Hunt.
A staunch 'southerner' during 1941 he then decided in 1942 that the main axis would be the centre towards Moscow.
this faggot is so overrated, I have no idea why people think that he is so good. Gallipoli was a disaster.
China won't fight over North Korea.
Japan won't invade the Phillipines in the event of war with the United States.
Domestic tranquility will best be maintained by shooting at unarmed veterans
Japan's best bet for a better future is making sure no one is accountable for what they did during the war.
Reminder: To become a general takes some effort if nepotism and other classic forms of feudalism are not involved. If they fucked up at some point, they were good at something earlier in their careers. This places them higher than most neckbeards at this board.
He sure as hell tried despite that, and he did play the biggest role in the failure that was the Gallipoli campaign.
That places him in a worse category than those who just so happened to officially occupy a position as admiral/general.
Firstly, he couldn't work with anybody; Chiang and the corruption in his government aside, he was as incapable of working with the British forces as he was with the Chinese ones. Not to mention that he straight up considered assassinating Chiang.
He was equally acerbic with his peers, both his successor Wedermeyer (to whom he left no information whatsoever) and the USAAF's Chennautl, with which he feuded openly.
Secondly, he was above all an infantry general and perhaps a good organizer but certainly not a good general. When Alexander, Stilwell and the Chinese officers in Burma were being pushed at Mandalay, Stillwell was the first to flee with his headquarters, abandoning both his own soldiers and his British and Chinese peers. Sure, he trudged out of Burma with his own men unharmed, but that doesn't make him a competent general. Nor did he fully understand the importance of air power and wrested as much power as possible out of the 14th air force, and refused to allow Chiang to divert the Chinese troops under his command to relieve US air bases and Chinese areas under attack (which was part of the reason of his eventual dismissal) in 1944.
Even if he was an amazing infantry tactician and organizer, his complete inability to work with his peers both within the US military and in the British and Chinese headquarters (which provided the bulk of the forces in the burma theater) would render him a terrible general.
1942 in the pacific
>recieve orders to prolong the fighting and wait for British and American reinforcements coming up from Australia
Nah man, lest just surrender over 130+ thousand troops to a Japanese force of 30 thousand.
Brilliant Arthur Percivel just fucking brilliant.
Grant is considered a bad President because he let corruption go loose.
Your point about muh divided congress is just backward projection about another lacklustre president: Obama
I have a gut feeling that the Vietcong and NVA are not going to do shit outside of Kha Song
>Charlie comes over the hill everywhere besides Kha Song
Fuck, well we can out KDA them, fuck it let's do it.
>this kills political climate for Vietnam
/his/torians I bring you the theater General who fucked up Vietnam.
They ran out of supplies didn't they? It's not as though they would have achieved much more than a lot of dead troops if he had made them fight. That said, the POWs had a pretty bad time of it too.
Joffre was pretty good
He was a good general while Ferdinand Foch was a good generalissimo (more skilled in politics than in war)
I mean french army in 1919 was especially strong, good use of tanks
>They ran out of supplies didn't they?
yeah, but so had the Japanese. If he'd counterattacked when the Japanese got to the reservoirs instead of surrendering, he probably could have forced them to withdraw.
I've always thought Percival should have been put in front of a firing squad. He was ordered not to surrender and he surrendered, fatally damaging the British Empire's defences in the east and leaving a hundred and thirty thousand of his men to be worked to death as slave labour.
To be fair, if you read Graziani's communications with Rome, he knew exactly what was going to happen. He's literally begging for trucks and supplies, or at least to be allowed to shorten his lines, and Mussolini is like 'lolfuck no, I need trucks for muh invasion of Greece, also you can't redeploy because muh glorious Nu-Romans do not retreat'.
Graziani did pretty much the only thing he could have done, which was to turtle around strongpoints, which is also what Rommel did in the same situation.
>send soldiers from levant with summer clothes to eastern anatolia
>tens of thousands of them freeze to death even before engaging russians
By casuals. Look up any military historian's work and you'll see a much harsher picture of both. I'd recommend The Path to Victory by Douglas Porch, since he goes into both of them.
Or just read this if you want something online for Rommel's blundering.
Pissing away near half of your resources on maintaining a front-line enormously far away from your bases of support for no results is an idiot move.
Not that guy, but I would point out that Chennault was amazingly hard to work with as well, and essentially undercut most of Stilwell's plans in China by continually promising pie in the sky "plans" for driving out the Japanese from China with airpower alone, which Chiang kept jumping at because it meant he wouldn't need to fight, which is what Stilwell always kept trying to get him to do.
Not to mention that it was his offensives in Burma which allowed for the airlift of supplies into China to avoid the Hump. He wasn't blind to the potential of airpower, he just viewed it as a support function to infantry, which puts him in line with most military thinkers in the war.
>Should I take all the main posts in the military that I have little to no knowledge in?
>Should I listen to any military expert?
I respect him as a president, but if not for Horatio Gates winning over French support we would have lost the war.
>which Chiang kept jumping at because it meant he wouldn't need to fight, which is what Stilwell always kept trying to get him to do.
That's an appraisal very much in line with Stilwell and the CCP's line, an assessment both Wedermeyer and Chennault (who, arguably, is very very biased) rejected. Stilwell's rosy assessment of the Yan'an CCP doesn't pan out in terms of actual engagements either--for all their talk about fighting, the CCP's operations were limited to sabotage and one joint operation with the KMT. The KMT did nearly the entirety of the fighting on the China front from Shanghai all the way to the last Guangxi offensives in 1945, and it was Stilwell's unwillingness to fight against Chiang's willingness to fight in 1944 that led to his dismissal.
>Not to mention that it was his offensives in Burma which allowed for the airlift of supplies into China to avoid the Hump.
Sure, but he almost lost it all when Japanese offensives in 1944 threatened to cut off the US air bases in Guangxi and Kunming, which happened to be the end terminus for the Burma airlifts. It was Chiang who demanded that he commit some of Stilwell's Chinese troops to defend the airfields and Stilwell's refusal that ultimately led to his dismissal. Failure to do so would have cut off China from air resupply, at least until new facilities had been built. While Stilwell's assessment that his forces were tired and unready may have held water, unwillingness to commit them into protecting what was essentially the operation with the most strategic impact in the Chinese theater still doesn't characterize him as a good general in my book.
One has to wonder what Mexico, and for that matter Spain, might have been were it not for this man's incredible ability fuck up at every turn.
Yes, but look how other American commanders did with similar resources. Morgan did a fucking perfect double envelopment at Cowpens, for example, by planning around the unreliability of his militiamen
Stalin never really commanded Red Army forces though. He dabbled in Grand Strategy during Barbarossa and for some of 1942, but when he realized that his generals did in fact produce better results when they had more freedom to make their choices, Stalin completely relented and gave full command to Zhukov, Konev, and the rest of his commanders.
The one thing that truly set him apart form Hitler, and probably what decided the war, was that Stalin always learned from his mistakes and changed tactics when one didn't work. Hitler however never took his hand out form the Wehrmacht's command and strategy, constantly making the same blunders over and over and never learning that having charisma and being a good statesman doesn't make you a great commander.
>massive glory hound
>could have cut off much of the german army in italy after cassino
>opted to march into rome, an open city, because he was aware of the imminent invasion in normandy and wanted the headline before the invasion took up the front page
>fed US and allied troops into the meat grinder at cassino
>yielded to freyburg's demands to bomb cassino and turn it into a rubble strewed bunker for the germans, who had declined to occupy it previously
>allowed lucas to sit on his arse at anzio so that he wouldn't be robbed of any glory
>had american soldiers hold allied soldiers up at gunpoint to prevent them entering rome, so that only US soldiers could march past the coliseum
Was so bumbling he once shot his own horse while hunting while still on his horse.
Not sure if anyone has heard of this guy. General Sickles was my great, great, great great? grandfather.
This is from wiki
>Upon the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861, Sickles became one of the war's most prominent political generals, recruiting the New York regiments that became known as the Excelsior Brigade in the Army of the Potomac. Despite his lack of military experience, he served competently as a brigade, division, and corps commander in some of the early Eastern campaigns. His military career ended at the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, after he moved his III Corps (without orders) to a position where it was virtually destroyed. He was wounded by cannon fire and had to have his leg amputated. He was eventually awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions
No one is sure if his move was a massive fuck up or military brilliance. Despite him getting most of his guys killed, some say it was a pivotal move that won Gettysburg for the north.
After he got his leg blown off he saved the bone to donate to the Army Medical Museum in DC
He also shot Francis Scott Keys (who penned the star spangled banner for you non us folks) son for porking his wife. He was the first person in history to beat a murder rap for temporary insanity.
I've often heard it said that one of the key developments during the war is that as the war progressed Stalin exercised less control over the military and his generals while Hitler exercised more
"Hey guys I captured the open city of Rome!... So what if I let an Army escape!"
Yes. Absolutely. If Japan ever launches another stupid, pointless war, it is because they have built a society around the inability of higher authorities to be questioned.
Article 9 is now dead, because the Supreme Court does not feel it has the authority to decide that sending troops abroad to wage armed conflict not to defend Japan, or fullfill international humanitarian obligations, but simply to secure Japan's interests does not count as an act of war.
Douglas MacArthur is the primary party responsible for the fact that it's now politically palatable to deny the Rape of Nanking.
Washington wasnt incompetent, he just wasnt that good of a general and had a shit tier army during the early years of the war.
He was still pretty clever though and got in a few good victories and prevented the British from beating them well before the French even considered helping.
People like to say he was complete shit to do away with the mystic of him being this great general, but he really was just ok.
no. he was politician and never a soldier. He was just starting in the cadet academy when WW1 ended and left. Then he was a failing chicken farmer until Hitler and the NatSoc party happened.
But he (officially) lead the troops in the last months of the war. He was so incompetent however that he himself agreed to fuck off. It's been a while since I read Last 100 Days so I don't remember all the names and details.
Is that hard to imagine? Maybe maybe a thread got caught on his gun's trigger while it was in the holster, or maybe the horse's movement tripped something in the gun's mechanism. Accidental discharges were/are very common with black powder firearms.
>The one thing that truly set him apart form Hitler, and probably what decided the war, was that Stalin always learned from his mistakes and changed tactics when one didn't work. Hitler however never took his hand out form the Wehrmacht's command and strategy, constantly making the same blunders over and over and never learning that having charisma and being a good statesman doesn't make you a great commander.
It didn't have anything to do with the massive material and manpower advantage the Soviets had? Also, Hitler took out France. He obviously wasn't dumb.
>Hitler had, without any knowledge of Manstein's plan, suggested an attack focused at Sedan, but had been persuaded to forget the idea as too risky.
Hitler had the idea without any prompting. Manstein was also not one of the main generals making decisions, and he certainly wouldn't have gotten his plan through without Hitler.
Hitler took out France, get over it. He was 100 times better than people make him out to be at strategy. Unfortunately he wasn't good enough to take on everyone while being undermanned.
Besides, you know, Guderian.
Hitler wanted to break through at Sedan and then roll north; a plan which didn't make Sedan any better than any other random point at the line. Manstein was the one who had an idea as to how to exploit it, with the westward drive with pretty much all of the armor. Hitler didn't have any of that.
>Hitler took out France, get over it. He was 100 times better than people make him out to be at strategy.
He sent 14 divisions to Norway. To fucking guard Norway; an occupation force that was roughly 1/6 of the entire population. He was a moron.
>Hitler took out France, get over it. He was 100 times better than people make him out to be at strategy. Unfortunately he wasn't good enough to take on everyone while being undermanned.
Starting wars you can't win! Clearly the sign of a strategic mastermind!
>Hitler wanted to break through at Sedan and then roll north; a plan which didn't make Sedan any better than any other random point at the line
We know that how, exactly?
>He sent 14 divisions to Norway
Had more to do with England than Norway.
>Starting wars you can't win! Clearly the sign of a strategic mastermind!
He didn't start the war anymore than France and Britain did. They both let Russia's aggression go uninhibited, while challenging Germany. France, Britain, Russia, and the United States were/are all controlled by Jews: they weren't going to let Hitler exist peacefully. Russia would have blindsided him if he didn't rearm, and Britain and France wouldn't have helped.
>We know that how, exactly?
By reading any particular book on the development of Fall Gelb? I would recommend Rick Richardson's work, "Fall Gelb And The German Blitzkrieg Of 1940: Operational Art"
>Had more to do with England than Norway.
Of course it did, but you don't need that level of deployment to parry a British invasion that would necessarily need to cross the entire North Sea and is easy to bottleneck up once they get off the beaches. And those would be troops that he would soon lose the easy ability to pull out and need on other theaters.
>He didn't start the war anymore than France and Britain did.
You know, besides annexing the Sudetenland, then grabbing territory twice more despite promising not to. And let's not forget his rampant treaty breaking, like that Anglo-German naval limit one.
>They both let Russia's aggression go uninhibited, while challenging Germany.
>France, Britain, Russia, and the United States were/are all controlled by Jews:
Oh, I see, you're an imbecile. You might want to go back to /pol/
>Russia would have blindsided him if he didn't rearm, and Britain and France wouldn't have helped.
Suvarov please go. I mean for fuck's sake, Stalin wouldn't even take Poland on before 2 weeks after Hitler had already attacked and drawn up the overwhelming majority of the Polish army.
Hard to compete with these guys for sheer number of lives wasted while somehow not getting NKVD'd. To quote a great mind, "It's not who ya know, it's who ya blow, mate."
>Let's ignore Russia because we can't have a strong, untied, central European power like Germany being succesful can we?
The terms of the Anglo-Polish treaty only stipulated a declaration of war in response to an invasion by Germany, and the only reason the Chamberlain parliament was forced to declare war in the first place. Chamberlain would have liked to have avoided declaring war entirely, he chose to do the bare minimum instead.
>Or let's let Hitler and Stalin completely fuck over Poland and THEN we come to the rescue.
And how would you have recommended doing that? Anglo-French intelligence at the time greatly overestimated the amount of German divisions remaining on the west side, and Gamelin had been sufficiently spooked by these estimates to have been unwilling to commit any sort of offensive action in the first place.
>Fuck over Europe, AGAIN!
Well now I'm sure that strong, unified central european power or the eastern european power it decided to provoke in open war had nothing to do with it.
Budyonny was actually a competent military commander in his early years but as military warfare developed he was stuck in the past and failed to grasp mechanized warfare and thought that cavalry charges and trenches were the way to go.
Yes, almost. But there is some debate over whether or not his move as Gettysburg was a stroke of genius.
Being the first guy to beat a murder rap with an insanity plea changed history. Maybe in some ways for the better maybe in some ways for the worse.
Either way I maintain that I am proud to be related.
Granted I'm a lunatic too.
>Yes, almost. But there is some debate over whether or not his move as Gettysburg was a stroke of genius.
How could it possibly be a stroke of genius? A stroke of luck, perhaps, but genius? Based on the information he had available, there was no justification whatsoever to move forward.
>Being the first guy to beat a murder rap with an insanity plea changed history. Maybe in some ways for the better maybe in some ways for the worse.
Temporary insanity. McNaughton beat his charges based on insanity decades before Sickles did, and was the one whose case formalized the insanity standard for most of the western world.
> Ctrl + F
> No Bernardo O'Higgins
I absolutely despise this guy yet 99,9999% of brainwashed normies in muh country consider him as a hero because Pinochet felt identificated with him and changed all history books to please his view.
> Be the out of marriage son of the colonial governor
> Travels as an aristocrat cuck to London getting liberal education from based Francisco de Miranda
> Become full liberal and member of the freemason "logia lautarina"
> FF to 1810, people loved natural leader Carrera brothers are the leaders of the independencia movement
> He gets a rank of lieutenant just by influence alone, literally had no military experience
> Literally loses EVERY SINGLE BATTLE he is in charge off
> In a battle where General Carrera was lost for a while (no communication) he self declares leader of the independencia
> When Carrera appears alive he start a civil war WHILE FIGHTING SPAIN
> All patriot troops get literally BTFO to Argentina
> He conspires to murder all the Carrera Brothers
> Crosses the Andes, meets with another freemason San Martin
> San Martin is on charge now, O'Higgins as a secondary general
> He still loses all fucking battles he is in charge
> San Martin saves the day, yet Ohiggins asks to be in charge of Chile
> Installs a dictatorship untill 1823 when he is kicked out to Peru
> 1973, Pinochet being a O'higginsboo orders all history teachers to tell the tale that O'higgins dindu nuffin
>How could it possibly be a stroke of genius? A stroke of luck, perhaps, but genius? Based on the information he had available, there was no justification whatsoever to move forward
>read pages 144-146
not everyone agrees with you, including the civil war historian who wrote this book. Which is all I've been saying.
>Temporary insanity. McNaughton beat his charges based on insanity decades before Sickles did, and was the one whose case formalized the insanity standard for most of the western world.
Ok let me re phrase
Being the first guy to beat a murder rap with a temporary insanity plea changed history. Maybe in some ways for the better maybe in some ways for the worse.
>Executed unilaterally, however, Sickles' movement was decidedly improper.
He seems so positive, yeah. I admit, I only skimmed this, but he's mostly talking about the dislike between Meade and Sickles and how it lead to the advance to the Peach Orchard. It doesn't justify the decision.
>It doesn't justify the decision.
Maybe so, as I have been saying all along. I am posting in an incompetent general thread. I'm not necessarily in either camp myself. You are in the Sickles fucked up camp. Like most people. I'm just pointing out that there is some debate out there as to whether or not that is true.
The thing about Washington is he kind of sucked at tactics but was good at strategy and, ironically, was really fucking good at retreating. That's not even a backhanded compliment; the British never beat him decisively enough to knock him out of the war because he always managed to escape whatever they threw at him with the bulk of his army intact. And hell, that was really all he needed to do and he knew it.