I'm too busy lamenting that none would be as stupid as the misinformed cretin who decided to include Montgomery on this list. Also Rommel could be argued to be sometimes overrated, but was by no means a bad general.
Too many errors. MacArthur's worst disaster was the huge number of Australian casualties directly caused by Little Mac and his stupid strategy in New Guinea. Your list overlooks the horror that was Mark Clarke. Your list ignores Gamelin's worst mistake, attempting to intervene in the Netherlands and using up France's only reserves to do it. Weygand was irrelevant to your list; the 1940 French campaign was already lost when he was appointed. Your list omits the disaster that was Hans Halder in botching Operation Barbarossa. Your list omits the disaster that was Marshal Graziani who lost more than 200,000 prisoners to an army he had outnumbered by about three times. Your list omits General Percival who botched the British campaign in Malaya so badly that Britains largest mass surrender took place in Singapore 1942. Given these omissions, it's hard to take your list seriously.
I don't think hindsight has a great deal to do with it, his motives were patently obvious and criticised even at the time. Not to mention the disastrous Gari river battle.
Including Monty in this list is simply ludicrous when you exclude someone such as Mark Clark. Nonsense. Why not include Eisenhower for dismissing Monty's pleas to take Berlin before the Soviets?
aaah.... actually..... Eisenhower was a great 'politician'. he proved this in his arrangement of the Korean War cease fire, making a North Korea and a South Korea.
What was the point in taking Berlin? The division of rump Germany in zones had already been decided in Yalta, and taking Berlin would have cost thousands of soldiers' lives just to give it back to the Soviets, in whose zoke Berlin was.
By your logic, every general in history was bad because they at some point suffered defeat or made questionable decisions. Napoleon must be a really bad general as he left behind thousands of soldiers in Egypt, made mistakes and had hundreds of thousands of soldiers die under his command
@@Amsfootboy79 News flash! France’s national football team is actually not that good because they primarily face bad opposition and lost to Argentina in the WC Final.
You mention Montgomery in the very first few seconds of the video, yet you don’t mention his achievements in North Africa where the 8th Army pursued the German and Italian forces something like 1,500 miles in around a week and then successfully fight a couple of battles and then push the enemy back into Tunisia. His role in Sicily where the British and Canadians were fighting the bulk of the enemy forces, while Patton was away doing literately his own thing. You also failed to mention that Montgomery was the Allied Ground Commander for DDay and commanded the troops on the ground during the initial assault and subsequent battle for Normandy which was concluded under his generalship in less time than the allied planners had projected. Those that criticise his failure to take Caen on DDay fail to realise that 3rd British Infantry Division were told capture it if you can but if not ensure that the enemy can’t use it to launch counterattack attacks. They also fail to realise or just ignore the fact that the British and Canadians faced the bulk of the enemy forces including 8 panzer divisions and the 3 heavy panzer battalions with Tiger and King Tigers for much of the battle. Despite this when the battle was over they still had achieved it with less casualties than the US troops. Montgomery’s role in Market Garden was minimal at best, his original idea of using the British 1st Airborne Division and the Polish Parachute Brigade was part of his plan to gain a bridgehead on the Rhine in accordance to the orders issued to him and Bradley by Eisenhower in late August for both army groups to gain bridgeheads over the Rhine as soon as possible. Operation Comet which was based on his idea was planned with an expected launch date of around the 4th September and it was then cancelled on the 10th by Montgomery due to increased German resistance, reports of German units in the Arnhem area and the fact that the ground forces jumping off point of Eindhoven hadn’t been liberated. Market Garden was Eisenhower’s as he tasked Brereton at 1st Allied Airborne Army to take the Comet plan as the basis for a bigger plan which became Market Garden. It was planned by predominantly American staff officers who made the decisions on the drop zones, the one lift a day so as not to tire out the aircrew and removed the coup de main attacks on all the bridges bar Grave. You also forgot to mention that he was given command of the 9th and part of the 1st Armies during the battle of the bulge, stabilising the situation to allow the troops to regroup and rebuild and then counterattack. It was also he who the Germans initially approached in May to surrender the units in his area to which he refused and said it must be all German forces on the western front not just those facing the 21st Army Group. When you look at all that if Montgomery was one of the worst then I hate to think what the others were like. Monty bashing in particular and British bashing in general is quite a popular sport across the pond even to the point where there are small digs in movies and mini series of things that are just added for no reason than to have a dig at the British.
Monty waited until he had an overwhelming material advantage in a position where they could not be outflanked. Then used that material advantage to chase beaten poorly supplied army. Market-Garden was rushed with some poor planning (expecting untried equipment to work) and poor reconnaissance (they did not know the 21st Panzer Division was there).
@@frosty3693 Check out by how much Bradley outnumbered the Germans for COBRA and then come back and tell me about an Army that needs that much to defeat the Germans. Germans who had the stuffing knocked out of them by Monty.
@@frosty3693 . But did result in the Nijmegen salient, which was a thorn in the German's side, leading to heavy losses in their failed attempts to retake it.
You need to read some proper books on Arnhem. The planning was done by Airborne command and not Monty. Airborne had had quite a few operations planned and then called off in the period before Market Garden and were therefore eager to get stuck in (otherwise why have an Airborne command in the first place?). Air support in terms of transport and offensive craft were limited by the air forces due to availability and fear of German flak. They all knew of the one open road leading to Arnhem (the Dutch had had pre-war manoeuvres along it so knew its dangers well), they were aware of the Panzer division resting locally but chose to ignore these due to their eagerness into getting into action.
Many Americans believe Montgomery slowed our advance and allowed Berlin to be taken by the Russians. But we tend to forget, the British won the war by themselves and the Americans were just in the way.
All allied forces in the Pacific were to be led by Gen. MacArthur in the invasion of Japan; requiring multiple staging areas that included air bases in China. From where should the assaults against the air base be mounted? It was decided that the Philippines was the best choice. Read: "Luzon Versus Formosa" by Robert Ross Smith
@@jackflack5294 thank you. I will read what you suggested. However, it is my belief that the entire southern thrust through the northern Solomons, New Guinei, Peleilu and the Philippines was unnecessary. Okinawa should have provided a sufficient base for the invasion of Japan. MacArthur drove this thrust against the advise of many others. Roosevelt should have stood up to him. A million died as a result of the invasion of the Philippines. Incidentally, my wife’s uncle died on I w o Jima, the invasion of which was likely also unnecessary. Of course, we are all geniuses in hindsight.
@@KR72534 When you say "a million died" as a result of the liberation of Philippines, are you saying that these were U.S. troops? Even if you including civilian, non-combatant deaths, I would say 1 million is too large a number
Mark Clark was the very worst. He was only interested in personal “glory”, for instance allowing the German army to escape and fight another day while he marched “triumphantly” into the already captured Rome.
I agree Clarke got the command by default when Ike sent Patton packing for slapping a sick private. Then with a chance to surround the Germans in Italy on the outskirts of Rome Clarke went glory gathering letting the entire German army escape while the Canadians and British wanted to get the enemy troops done with and have success . The Allies were fighting in Italy until the end of the war. Mark Clarke was the worst.
@@colinhunt4057 well my dad was up the hill 3rd battle! Casino, but it was his / Clark’s entrance into Rome 04/06/1944’ that made even more people that should have survived not ! At the end of the day ! So to speak
@@ronmailloux8655 actually the war in Italy ended a month before! May ! So April ? My dad helped that ! Took out a German Area HQ , officers late 44’ as they were abandoning it The brief cases full of not burnt documents
General MacArthur was not a great general. He was an arrogant stupid ass. He made many mistakes. His arrogance is what created his problem. He had a lot of help. So Jerry MacArthur was not that great of a general.
@@bradleyupdyke9492 MacArthur has his critics and his defenders, and they are both right. I met a man many years ago who served under him, called him Dugout Doug. But armies under MacArthur suffered fewer casualties than any other commander during the war.
Worst Generals of WW II - Percival - Maurice Gamelin - Maxime Weygand - Herman Goering - Mac Arthur - Clark - There is no way Montgomery or Rommel should be on this list . .
You mean Luftwaffen Meyer . ITS a mock Name . That fat duchebag once Said: If one Bomber ever crosses in to Germanys airspace you can call me Meyer. Well guess what happenend.
MacArthur left his own man to die in the Bataan Death March while he hopped on a sub to Australia, he is a piece of trash. And every single one of my fellow Marines will all say the same thing
Macarthur took more territory with fewer casualties (most of which were due to disease) than any American General ever. And Rommel did more with less than many commanders in history
@@dolorusedd2586 he was a piece of trash. The real brains in the Pacific theater was the two 5 Star Fleet Admirals Chester Nimitz and William “Bull” Halsey Jr.
I would certainly add to this "top 10" list the American general (Courtney Hodges) responsible for the unimaginative and terribly costly Hürtgen Forest campaign (Sept. - Nov. 1944) -- " the longest single battle the U.S. Army has ever fought" (Wiki). A campaign that resulted in anywhere from 33,000 to 55,000 American casualties, and has been described as an Allied "defeat of the first magnitude." More Wiki: "[H]istory professor and academician, Paul Fussell, blames the impracticality of Lt. General Courtney Hodges' command and untrained troops' demoralization for the defeat in the battle, citing the violation of Patton's observation that 'Plans should be made by those who are going to execute them.' "
"Plans should be made by those who are going to execute them.' " ---that's not how things work 99% of the time in the Army. You always have the high ups planning and the rest executing the plan. As someone who has been in the Army, I can tell you that "ordinary soldiers" usually do not have any idea of what is going to happen until it is time for it.
@@User-jr7vf The ultimate execution of strategy and planning is always a burden borne by troops on the ground. However, I'm sure that the "execution" in the quoted statement has nothing to do with the grunts -- it instead pertains to the concept that those of high rank who devise a major plan should be the same individual or individuals who see it through to its execution.
@@JohnSmith-rw8uh Australia was under threat of attack from Japan. The lads joined other Commonwealth nations and IMO as such did more than their share in winning a war. Maybe they didn't have to be there but they were. Cheers.
Don’t be ridiculous. Patton was an incredible strategist and probably the most feared general the Yanks had. Whole German armies were relocated and either held up or displaced simply due to rumours of where Patton would be and what he intended for his troops. The subterfuge the Allies engaged in, using Patton as their mark, severely hampered the Germans. Not to mention how his 3rd Army ran over everything in their way in early 45.
@@mikemanner9811 Patton was indeed a good general, but he's often portrayed as someone the Germans feared he wasn't. The Germans never had a Abwehr unit that personally analysed Patton, who never rose above Army command.
Hard to fault Rommell when he was basically given scraps with which to conquer North Africa. Time and time again he was denied more equipment, tanks, planes, fuel as the invasion of the Soviet Union was taking up all of Germany's resources. In fact Rommel's advances were often curtailed not because of enemy action but because of low fuel and the need to wait for more shipments which often didn't arrive or arrived half full. German forces often only continue to be operational because of captured American and British fuel stocks which kept the engines running. As Rommel once put it "If i had the resources the Americans and British have, I would have conquered half the world by now"
Well you also have to factor in, huge amounts of supplies and equipment sent to him were sent to the bottom of the Med. Not taking Malta ended up being a huge blunder for the Axis.
It seems strange to have him and montgomery on the list. They are probably included as 'overrated' rather than actually worst. 'overrated' as a descriptions for Rommel can be defended, as he is highly regarded for partially political reasons, but what he did with the resources available to him was still extremely impressive. Contrast with Lloyd Fredendall it becomes a little absurd. However, his performance after Africa was not terribly impressive - but by then I suspect his heart wasn't in it.
@@CallioNyx What is always disregarded is the nature of a retreat, to the tabloid Press every one is a disaster. In El Alamein I the British, Commonwealth and Allied troops conducted a disciplined retreat under fire. The Royal Navy developed the strategies need to interdict Rommel's supply lines. It even gave time for the LRDG and SAS to develop. All of that contributed to the success of El Alamein II, included by most historians as one of the three most important battles of WWII, with Stalingrad and Midway. Montgomery's success was in fighting off the politicians, including Churchill, who would have had him begin the attack without the necessary advantages needed to 'guarantee' victory.
@@pax6833 The thing with Malta was a failure above Rommel's level. He is blamed for diverting the supplies that would be needed for that operation - in driving east towards Cairo but the entire logistical effort in Africa and the Med was at a level far above him. They should have done whatever they had to do to take Malta and they didn't do it. If a small fraction of the resources put into Barbarossa had been put into the Med - they'd have turned it into an Axis Lake. .
@@CallioNyx Rommel's plan to have his tanks forward was the best chance the Germans had to defeat the Allies at the waters edge. If they were allowed even a day to get ashore - there was no kicking them out - and Rommel knew that. He also knew that if the tanks were right there at the start - Allied Air would keep them from getting there soon enough to make any difference. The Allies probably would have succeeded no matter what Rommel did - but - his plan was better than what they did do. .
It took the publications of his book for the world to wake up to it. A great read with much praise for the Indian troop, some Chinese generals and lots of scorn for the British Army in India that had nothing prepared as the army staggered out of Burma.
Thank you for putting Gamelin and Weygand at the top of the list. French high command was almost single-handedly responsible for France's defeat in 1940.
Yes, though to be fair French politicians and industrialists of the 20s and 30s also contributed - they mostly pushed for various ideas and concepts that turned out to be fundamentally flawed.
@user-aero68 Gamelin particularly. He destroyed France's defenses by diverting the entire strategic reserve on a pointless excursion into the Netherlands. So when the Germans broke through, there was no reserve to contain them. Keep a reserve in place and the German breakthrough would have been stopped or made much more difficult. It was Maurice Gamelin who lost the Battle of France in 1940. It was Maurice Gamelin who prevented France and Britain from intervening to support Czechoslovakia in 1938. The Czechs were better armed than the Germans with a strong, well equipped army. With France, Britain and the Soviet Union allied in support, Hitler would have been crushed if he still tried to attack the Czechs. But Maurice said "non", and that was the end of the alliance to stop the Nazis at the time.
Why is it people ignore the situation France was in late in the 1930's? France had lost the largest amount of lives in the first World War and that translated to a very low birth rate. France simply didn't have the people for an army and/or for production of weapons. That meant as hostilities looked imminent they were facing a charging elephant with only a BB gun. France could have saved itself some trouble and made it's own peace deal with Germany but stood up against them while the US was selling them everything under the sun and US industrialists were helping Germany speed up it's war production. The French had no choice but hope fortification would be enough along with the help of British and commonwealth forces. To make matters worse their neighbour who was afraid to give Germany any reason to see it as an enemy refused to allow foreign troops over it's border. The long held plan had always been for French and BEF forces to move up into Belgium and using natural barriors to help stop Germanys advance. Of course the Belgians realized to late Germany was always going to invade but by then the road west was wide open for Germany. Also French orders for military supplies from the US never arrived in time. The P40's ordered were not even shipped by the fall of France and were suppose to have gone to the UK but they went to FDR's illegal mercenary air force in China being delivered via Pearl Harbour. By the fall they were landed in China and reassembled ready for US pilots to use against Japanese aircraft attacking the Chinese. So much for the idea the US was attacked without provocation. Now if anyone had an idea of what France could have done different with it's limited resources and personnel please share and I will seriously look at it.
I would hardly think Monty was one of the worst generals, He was mostly successful, just to focus on Market Garden is disingenuous to his other successes.
very correct. apparently its STILL fashionable among 'mercuns to critique the guy that always had fewer men and less eqpt than the enemy OR other allies and STILL wound up batting .950
It was overly ambitious and risky with many thing needing to go right in the chain if event for it not to fail. But so was the D-day operations. They knew from the start it was a big and risky gamble but the reward of ending the war so much earlier was too tempting.
@@jacqueschouette7474 Caen was an objective for D-Day itself, but it was not the sole goal for the campaign. The point that is made in "Decision in Normandy" has to do with the CAMPAIGN objectives, not the objectives for the campaign's first day. The Normandy campaign ENDED when the German pocket at Falaise was liquidated and the Allies began to pursue the Germans toward the Seine River and then towards Germany.
Monty was a set piece tactician and he often missed opportunities when he had the enemy on the run. His style definitely cost the British more lives. His greatest success was El Alamein.
I hate to say it, but Rommel was very good. It was his lack of supplies that did him in. Allied attacks on German cargo ships in the Mediterranean was impactful in his defeat in North Africa.
@@rankoorovic7904Yes I can can agree that he wasn't incompetent. He was the best. If you are looking the word incompetent - search Josif Stalin and hers circus.
Australian General Gordon Bennett should be on the list for his low act on leaving behind 15,000 of his fellow countrymen to become POW’s to the Japanese in Singapore
Quite amazing that he gave up to an enemy that had not attacked him, that was almost out of ammo and completely out of food causing most of the Japanese to be starving for many days before even getting to Singapore. Never read of his subsequent treatment by the Japanese but I imagine they treated him royally for saving them from a huge impending loss. Win or lose Generals always live high on the hog.
Yes, Bennett certainly was a cowardly grub, but so too was the commander of the Australian POW's in Changi. He stripped lower ranked men of their uniforms so his officers had nice neat clothes to wear. When you consider that it was the "other" ranks who were doing all the work, ( officers didn't have to work, ) he obviously was more interested in appearances over welfare!
@@douglasthompson2740 Bennett's Australians fought as hard as they could, they were 13% of the forces and took 73% of battle deaths in the campaign. The decision to surrender rather than counterattack was made by Percival, Bennett had no choice but to follow orders and can't be blamed for Percival's lack of understanding. He could have chosen to go into captivity with his men, rather than flee in a small boat and pass on the lessons of the disaster to the allies. That would have been romantic, but being romantic wasn't his job.
Very worst general - Charles de Gaul. Not even close. When Germany invaded France he was on the first plane out of the country. Deserter #1 fled to England. Once there he inserted himself into the British MoD and berated the British generals saying, "If I was there I would have done it this way..." and "I would have done it better..." You WERE there and you fled the country you coward. When he came back with the British troops he stopped in Paris while the rest of the Allies pushed the Germans out of France. Benedict Arnold was a much better general than Charles de Gaul. I can't think of a single worse general in all of history.
De Gaulle was supremely arrogant (not unusual for a general) but he wasn't a coward and he wasn't a bad general. De Gaulle was one of the few French who seemed to understand the use of armored forces and mobility almost as well as some German military minds such as Guderian. When France was invaded, de Gaulle counterattacked and kept attacking, even when told to retreat. Yes he escaped from France when the government itself was giving up, but he had at least a symbolically important role with the Free French and Resistance. He did enter Paris which the Germans had left as an open city, and he was likely thinking of his political career at that point. But the "coward" label doesn't really fit him. Benedict Arnold was a great general and fearless leader, but he got caught up in petty arguments over money and being denied recognition for his accomplishments (such as Saratoga), and decided to help the British win the war. In the USA, Arnold is rightly viewed as a traitor but no one would say he wasn't a skilled military leader. "Worst general ever" would be tough to determine, but it wouldn't be de Gaulle or Arnold. PQ Varus lost 3 Roman legions at the Teutoburg Forest to German "barbarians", so there's an ancient candidate for "worst ever". Semyon Budyonny was a Soviet officer who failed to appreciate tanks, and felt horse cavalry was superior. Nevertheless he commanded a large number of Soviet troops as Germany invaded, and lost over 1 million men in a few months - including the huge Uman and Kiev encirclements (aka "pockets"). Arthur Percival lost Singapore in WWII despite outnumbering the Japanese invaders more than 2:1. So there are many contenders.
The best answer anyone ever gave DeGaulle came from Dean Rusk. When DeGaulle said he wanted every American soldier off French soil. Rusk asked if we should take our dead too.
It's very easy to criticise the military top brass - all commanders make errors at some point, as they are human after all; but what is not so easily understood are the many and varied conditions and mitigating circumstances that they are faced with. Strategies and tactics cannot be over-simplified as there are political shenanigans as well as supply, forces available, weather comditions etc, etc to be taken into account. Commanders are mainly appointed by Presidents and politicians as much as the military heirarchies, and in mre than a few instances, little account is ever taken of the appointees' capabilities - in Britain known as "The Old Boy Neteork." It should also be understood the the US had the greater preponderance of troops and supplies than the British and Commonwealth nations, and as a result were expected to become "the leading force." When one considers the fact that the US had never really ever won a war of any great impact - indeed, the oldest generals had rarely fought anyone other than the indigenous American Indians, and even in WW1 they had to be taught modern warfare. On the other hand, Britain had been fighting European and Colonial ways throughout its history, and in the main had kept pace with military advances and capability. However, in WW2, although fighting in a whole variety of theatres, they were placed second to to the US, and yes, both powers had their lesser-qualified commanders. I have to disagree with the narrator with regard to Montgomery. "Monty" had fought throughout WW1 and had become a strong strategist, gaining high command as a result. He was cautious, but only because of the bad planning and the tremendous loss of life in WW1 - he did not want a repeat performance in WW2. North Africa had been given two generals - Anderson, who like Mongomery, understood warfare, but failed to get the tanks ands artillery he needed. Without those his battle pland failed - hardly his fault. He was eplaced by Auchimleck, whod exactly the same problems - needing proper materiele to fight Rommel, but not getting them. Monty is then appointed, and flatly stated that he could do nothing without the proper equipment; he demanded it, and he got it, and the result was that he won the North African Campaign. Operation Torch was a disaster from the start. The failure of the US Forces to assist the British in the final push, resulted in the British having to come to the rescue, after the Americans lost a tank division in the first few hours, followed by the loss of an infantry division. Bad leadershgip at all levels! The best American General was without doubt Bradley. Patton should have been cashiered (fired) as a result of his general conduct and treatment of junior soldiers. McArthur should have been sent home sfter is initial failures. Mark Clark was a cowby out for glory - not a great leader. No single British Commander other than Percival deserved replaement - and those that were was "political" rather than any other reason. Percival was placed in an impossible situation; on a small island that had its fixed gun batteries facing the wrong direction, with no chance of support from the mainland, Percival rightly chose to surrender his forces rather than have them wiped out by superior Japanese trroops, tanks and artillery. Perhaps it was a wrong choice, since many of his men died from disease, starvation and brutal treatment in the Jap prison camps. As I say, the varied circumstances dictate the end analysis. However, the calibre of the generals has to be taken into account. On the US side, the calibre of all officers has raised many questions, for so many were conscripted men who had no experience of military life, whereas throught it its history (until 1916) the British had always had a voluntary service system, and it men were therefore trained into professional military service. Most of it senior officers had learned their trade during WW1 and it many other wars, so it's not surprising that they had mainly good calibre, professional leaders. So when making the claims as this narrator has done, it seems clear that his research is not as good as he might suggest. Nevertheless, an interesting insight into the American mindset!
Well said. Auchinleck was an excellent commander who knew he had the troops but lacked the equipment and supplies. The fact that he got up Churchill's nose, and wouldn't treat him with any respect probably supports your 'politicking' argument. If I have a criticism of Montgomery, it's that he underestimated his Indian troops, who made up most of the 8th Army when he arrived. Having been an Indian Army (as opposed to British Army of India) officer for most of his career, Auchinleck knew how good and how tenacious they were, but Montgomery held off until he could get more of the 'home' troops that he better understood.
@@unclenogbad1509 I'm inclined to agree with you. Indian troops could be hard to maneage due in the main to their caste syste; but under good leadershid foght extremely well. Montgomery and Patton hated each other, and while Monty wasn't without his faults, he was a much better commander than old "Blood and Guta" who thought himself better than evryone. I don't think I would have liked him as my ally!! He was not a tactician in any true sense, believeing the best way to enter a fight was basically in a straight line, head to head. With leass of an attitude he could have been a really good commander. Monty was "ols school" and master of the grand plan, except that his staff were noy as competent. he needed Alexander, for together they were a match for the enemy.
@@reggriffiths5769 I agree there. Patton was really just a tank captain who'd brown-nosed his way the ranks. He may have been the most useful general the Wehrmacht ever had.
Mutaguchi didn't conquer Singapore. General Tomoyuki Yamashita did. Percival surrendered to Yamashita who was the General on the ground in charge of the Malaysian invasion in 1942
Probably one of the worst reviews ive watched on generals. As a Brit, I agree Montgomery should be on the list but by far the worst general the allies had was Mark Clark - not even mentioned therefore I have to doubt the credibility of this list
It might help your case(s), Grunge, if you didn't play so fast and loose with the facts. For example, you blame the carnage of Peleliu on MacArthur when he never had command of the operation -- the island and the operations there fell under the command authority of Chester Nimitz. None of the American units involved were under MacArthur's command, and he had no part in the planning or execution of capture of Peleliu (Operation Stalemate II).
MacArthur was very much responsible for Peleliu. Taking Peleliu was part of MacArthur's operation to retake the Philippines. The entire Philippines operation was unnecessary, The Navy preferred Formosa but FDR greenlighted the Philippines instead.
You must be joking. I don't know many generals that didn't suffer a setback but to put Monty and MacArthur in the same boat as a real loser like Fredendall is simply crazy. Not only did Monty settle British forces in North Africa, the triumph at Alamein was, as Churchill put it, "the end of the beginning." Montgomery was very casualty conscious - that explains his caution. When it came to the planning of DDay, it was Monty that insisted on five divisions landing on the beaches instead of three. He wasn't try to fail near Caen but he was indeed trying to draw German armor toward his front and this did help Cobra immensely. See Ian Hamilton's splendid trilogy on Monty's career for the details. I've spent ten years of my life examining MacArthur's campaigns and I've read the rubbish of every MacArthur hater in the US and Oz. I'll certainly grant he was a bad subordinate, but his insistence on defending the PI was needed to keep Quezon in the war - and the retreat was very well handled - check the Green Book volume. The rest of his operations in WWII were noteworthy for remarkable economy of force, speed and low cost relative to objectives gained. BTW: among his biggest fans were British CS Alan Brooke and Montgomery. And Rommel? And you let a dunces like Bradley and Hodges off the hook? And Percival doesn't make your loser list? Your subscribers are getting miserable history here.
I think Mac's insistence on P.I. was wrong. Nimitz wanted to go to Taiwan (Formosa) cut off everything to the south, and proceed up the Ryukyus to the home islands.
@@ThomasNoonan-qc8vp Hmmm. Nope. It was King that had decided a move to Formosa was the best next step. Nimitz made the argument in Hawaii for FDR but MacArthur had the better of it. In point of fact, Nimitz didn't want to go to Formosa either, and did think that a major American base in Luzon - preferably Manila Bay - would be invaluable to help cut off Japan from it's natural resources from the East Indies and perhaps serve as a base for a potential invasion. It's true that King would have liked to junk the SW Pacific advance altogether, but events proved him wrong on that one. The drive up New Guinea - and bypassing Rabaul - meant the "Resource Zone" was crippled and ultimately made worthless. It was for this reason that the Japanese stripped Manchuria and China of troops and deployed nearly a million men to garrison the East Indies, New Guinea, and the PI. This redeployment started in late 1943 before US subs had prevented moving Japanese forces. Had the Japanese had only needed to concentrate on a drive up the Central Pacific (which would have included a stop somewhere in the PI) places like Saipan would have had garrisons three times the size they did. (It's important to realize that places like Iwo and Okinawa were weakly defended up to a few weeks before the American invasion.) It also meant that the American forces deployed to the SW Pacific for Cartwheel would have been almost impossible to redeploy and hence wasted. As it was the Japanese were forced to split their defensive effort and ended up with half a million men not firing a shot - not at least against American soldiers - civilians in the occupied areas weren't always so lucky.
Montgomery is hated primarily because... it is popular to hate him. Just remember he was the one who kicked Rommel's ass! As for Operation Market Garden it was the deepest single penetration of the Western Allies during the entire war so to consider it a failure is just malignant propaganda. Even with this hiccup included Montgomery's casualty rate for the entire war was still lower than the average for similarly ranked generals.
I don't agree Montgomery is in that list, neither should Rommel. Both were very capable Generals with faults. I also wouldn't say Montgomery kicked Rommel's ass. That happened mainly because of the superior supply to the British forces enjoyed at that stage in Africa. And that was in big part an American achievement. With equal supplies Rommel would likely have taken Egypt. His tactics were superior to Monty's.
It is not possible to make the statement that Rommel's tactics were superior to Monty's. At that stage of the desert war you are equating apples with pears. Prior to Monty, he had been fighting a largely successful fluid campaign against inferior British commanders. He had eventually come to a halt at Alamein when Monty finally took over command. So Monty had not been involved in any of Rommel's successful battles prior to that. So you have no way of equating them. Rommel lost the set piece battle of Alamein and was then in retreat for 1500 miles or so. So hardly grounds for saying Rommel's tactics were better? @@wanderschlosser1857
@@wanderschlosser1857 "I also wouldn't say Montgomery kicked Rommel's ass" In terms of casualties he certainly did, the Eighth army had less than 13,000 while Rommel had *73,000* . "And that was in big part an American achievement" The sky was ruled by Hurricanes and Spitfires. The artillery and troops on the ground were also lead by soldiers of the British Empire. A few Sherman tanks and grants doesn't suddenly make it an American achievement, It doesn't matter whose equipment it was. El Alamein was a British and Commonwealth victory.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- America kept the UK going. It's huge supplies of material to the UK and directly to Africa enabled the UK to build up the superior force in Egypt that actually stopped Rommel and pushed him back for good. And there weren't only a few Shermans or Grants. Of course it was the British Army that stopped Rommel but you Brits similar to the Russians like to forget that it was at the end the overwhelming mighty American industrial power that broke the Axis.
I do not think that Montgomery, Rommel and Weygand belongs to this list. - Weygand has herited a lost battle. He came from North Africa and needed some days to understand the situation. In the second phase of the campaign he did the best what could be done. - Rommel had some shortcommings but as well some genius. He was a high risk taker. In many cases it went well. - Montgomery replaced Generals in North Africa that managed the campaign worse than he did. Market Garden was indeed a short comming.
MacArthur had the Australian Military under his command when he was Supreme Commander SW Pacific but due to his ego had a low opinion of them, even though the Aussies were doing the heavy lifting in PNG.
More American bullshit. Monty was one of if the greatest general of WW2 . Market garden was not his plan .And it was failed by the American general Gavin that helped lead to the defeat. Monty along with General Bill Slim was the best of the best
market garden was a stupid high risk, high reward mission. It should have never happened. And the british played a more vital roll in liberating Holland. Not only that but lost WAY more men. Shut it dumb amerikunt
@@grahamhodge8313 That is an asinine response. Monty's plan was stupid, shortsighted, and relied on precision timing and absolute accuracy on how the Germans would respond. Ike was a fool not to have laughed Monty out of the room, especially as Monty's own subordinate generals thought the operation was insane.
how about chicken cheese dick Bernard who didn't have the cajones to show up at Monty Garden. After yet another of his pathetic plans came apart immediately just like Caen,Sicily and Falaise.That the crown continually sweeps under the rug toprotect their delicate egos. Britian had good commanders that chortling chode wasn't one of them
"As Mao had once said of MacArthur, arrogant, egotistical men were easy to defeat." - page 587, Chapter 47 of Coldest Winter by David Halberstam "Mao knew his military was far inferior to the Americans in tanks, artilleries and air power. But he had taken the measure of MacArthur and discerned a weakness. In early November, Mao sent small cadres of troops to attack all along the approaching American front and then his men pulled back what looked like a full retreat. "The Chinese hit hard and then they just disappeared. There was nothing out there anymore. MacArthur said full speed ahead again." This became part of the strategy which is to lure the Americans further into North Korea, have them penetrate deeply and then ultimately surround them. This was a certain shrewdness of Mao. He knows who he is dealing with. He knows MacArthur is quite arrogant. This is the strategy that plays into that arrogance." "Chosin Reservoir - Epic of Endurance | KOREAN WAR", 24m20s
No way you can say Montgommery was a "worst general" - he was in that position due to being proven to be good prior to Market Garden. Market Garden has been overanlysed to hell but if say the Germans hadn't had that [SS?] armour division regrouping there at just the wrong spot + the radios had worked better etc, it might've worked. And he had limited manpower by 1944 Britain has been in the war for 5 years and was maxed out, of course he was going to be cautious. Oh and don't get me started on the crap about how he should have done more in Normandy, the strategy there was for the British troops to push into the Germans on the direct front at Caen etc while the US tropps wheeled round the open west flank, this is a standard strategy and what happened. Not saying the US weren't good brave guys btw, it's not a zero sum game :) Clark I think is the one I think we can all openly dislike, who seemed to totally throw away tactics for an egotistic blow?
Ridiculous to label him as such. Had his flaws and bad decisions for sure but also was instrumental in turning the tide against Germany. left the video as soon as I saw it going there.
The first failed attempt of a D-Day was also Montgomery doing, that guy cost thousands of soldiers lives needlessly with his bad planning, so yes he deserves being on this list.
..and if the Brits hadn't IGNORED the intel from HUMINT, SIGNINT and IMINT that an entire SS PanzerKorps was refitting in the area...and if the arrogance to be the "first across the Rhine" hadn't been a factor in ignoring the intel there was, then yes you have a point
Grunge you either did not do any research or are repeating the mantra that has been around for 70 years. 1.According to the ORBAT you know Order of Battle of Market Garden The Commanding Officer for Market Garden was Eisenhower ,his C of S was Bedel -Smith the next mentioned is Browning and Brereton next is the Airforce C/O. Montgomery is ONLY mentioned as the Commanding Officer of the 21st Army Group MONTGOMERY HAD NO PART IN HOW THE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED/
The problem with the intelligence available to Field Marshall Montgomery and other planners for Operation Market-Garden was that much of it came from the Dutch Underground. The Dutch Underground had been compromised by the Germans months before Operation Market-Garden was being planned. And the Allies knew this. So most of that information coming out of Holland was heavily discounted by Allied planners. The basic message that the Allies would be dropping paratroopers on two SS panzer divisions "resting" in the Arnhem area came back to haunt the Allies during the operation. Needless to say, lightly-armed WWII paratroopers generally don't do well against even depleted tank units once the element of surprise has worn off.
@@ladycplum Do not use Band of Brothers as the definitive happenings of DDay and beyond e.g That stupid scene where the Brit TANKEE IGNORED THE ADVICE OF THE us SOLDIER.Never happened
This presentation lacks any credibility, having omitted the worst offender of incompetence and hubris seen on the Allies team. Mark Clark. While I have no good words for Macurthur, Clark would be No 1 incompetent and Douggie would be fighting others off for a solid No 2 position. The absence of Thomas Blamey indicates the US based producer’s grasp on the fact that the US was only one part of the Allied coalition. Interesting that Percival or Bennett didn’t even rate a special mention. Very shallow assessment, based on populist impressions, not researched facts.
Douglass macarther wasn't all that well thought of by australian Troops in New Guinea. Being on the wrong side of 80yrs old I can still remember my father and uncles comments. After a couple of 100 Australian reservist held over 6000 Japanese regulars for 3 day at the Battle of Isuwava till the australian regulars could relive them and stopping the Advance on and capture of Port Morseby. He labelled them cowards for allowing Kokoda airport to fall to the japanese. He had no Idea what was going on at Kokoda or the Kokoda Track or the terrain of it. He labelled it trail because it sounded better to the American audiences. Australian Feild marshall Sir Thomas blaney out ranked him, but macarthur was in charge. There is a record of a conversation between Macarthur and Blamey after disagreement. "If you were in my army I'de have you shot" blamey's response " If I was in your army I would have shot myself." It seems macarthur was excellent at leading from the rear.
Montgomery was one of the worst. He was a huge ego attached to a minimal brain. The Allies would have been much better served if the British had assigned him to guard a chicken coop in Cornwall and left him there for the duration of the war.
Yes, he was not able to take Caen, then did not think of seizing the port of Antwerp so valuable for supplies and finally launched the disastrous Arnhem offensive!
Field Marshal Montgomery was not one of the worst generals as described here -- this is American negative fixation and is always repeated. Generals can make mistakes - total nonsense that he was bad !!
Dugout Doug was completely worthless in the Pacific. He lost the Philippines thru his lack of preparation and insisted on retaking the islands to salve his own ego. He cost many lives. Then in Korea he decided that the JCS needed to be ignored, forcing Truman to relieve him of command before he went into mainland China.
@@garyrobinson3663 because they were stupid. Read up on the circumstances that led to the forced withdrawal from Chosin reservoir because of his ego and arrogance.
As for US generals, Mark Clark should be at the top of the list...most famously for the fiasco at Rapido River. He should have been held responsible for the massive loss of American lives in that battle; the only thing that saved him was that he was buddies with Ike.
Easy for us to judge from our comfortable chairs, with 80 years hindsight, and not subject to the fog of war, and confusion and limited information available to commanders. Even so, British General Arthur Percival performed poorly during the Japanese attack on Singapore. He did not marshal his resources properly and was completely outclassed by his charismatic and energetic opponent General Yamashita, despite Percival having 3 times the number of men. The decision to concede the landing areas on the North of the island (admittedly under intense pressure) and withdraw to the City in the South was fateful. Also, one of Percival's excuses for surrender - a water shortage - made no sense. Singapore has a tropical climate with rain on many afternoons. Yamashita's nickname amongst his own forces was The Tiger, whereas Percival's men referred to him as The Rabbit! British General William Slim would later provide a textbook example of how to fight and win against the Japanese Empire.
Had an uncle who served on a supply ship in the pacific. He and many he served with despised MacArthur. MacArthur was not only bad in the Philippines he made many similar errors in Korea. I know a retired 4 star general who thinks the world of MacArthur and honestly I don’t get it.
MacArthur should have been dishonorably discharged due to the attack of the Philippines when he had been informed of the Pearl Harbor sneak attack yet he was unprepared for the air attack which destroyed most if the Far East Air Force!
Then when MacArthur got to Australia he socialised with the Melbourne social set while his troops sat leaderless in Queensland. It took a bunch of volunteer Aussie reserves to have the first Japanese defeat at Kokoda and MacArthur ignored them calling them "chocolate soldiers" MacArthur's plan for Australia was the " Brisbane Line" letting the Japanese have the North of Australia. Then they let him have a crack at Korea a few years later !
Yup but was thought of earlier as ahero and the Phillipinos liked him probably on his WWI rep.Nimitz should have been appointed overall commander in the Pacific much more tactically gifted and a team player.
Yes But for the Aussies Stopping the Japanese in PNG the Japanese would have Taken the Riches part of Australia . One of these days You Yanks may have the Good grace to admit that the Japanese were Stopped by a lot of Determined young Men some as young as 15 (Fact)
@johnmunns5964 Who? The whole war? They threw him a Party a Bon Voyage as he left for Tokyo? Where did he stash his 10,000 tons of gold? Finally his Aussie and Fillipina harum girls? See there's more!
MacArthur, his pride in full swing, demanded the Phillipines be liberated. The cost was 14, 000 US soldiers. The Philippine killings were between 500,000 and 1,000,000. It could have been radically lower if the military was allowed to follow its original island hopping offense.
What about the hostages in Santo Tomas? Or his vow to the Phillipine people? You might ask them how they liked being under Japanese rule? Suggest you read American Caesar.
Try doing some research… the choice was Formosa OR the Philippines, full stop. The goal was to cut Japan off from what remained of their Southeast Asia holdings. As Formosa had been held by Japan for more than 45 years it would have far more costly to capture and geographically was less of a “cork in the bottle” than the Philippines. MacArthur did not “make” the decision, the chiefs and the president did.
I do not agree with most of your list. The British General in charge of the Defense of Singapore, General Percival was an incompetent. He surrendered a far superior force to an audacoious Japanese General commanding a much smaller force who predictably attacked him from the landward side of the island. Stalin was a terrible general to start the war, first of all he didn't believe his spies in Berlin who told of the German Operation Barbarossa attack and the date and prior to WWII Stalin had many of his officer corp shot in 1938 leaving inexperienced generals to face the Germans when they invaded in June 1941. I believe three Russian/Soviet Army Groups surrendered to fast blitzkreig tactics with an average of between 500,000 to 650,000 troop per Army Group lost in 1941 alone, or up to 1,600.000 million men plus equipment. Someone below mentions U.S. Gen. Mark Clark and his timidity which cost lives and slow progress. Montgomery was slow but on the whole methodical and won in the Desert in 1942 at the same time that Stalingrad was being decided. Patton was great. I was surprised MacArthur was allowed to continue in Command after his defeat. And lastly, Hitler was the absolute worse General, he committed the worst crimes of humanity (genocide) that he had to keep hidden to save his own neck, when he should have been reconsidering his plight and the plight of Germany.
This video was a really good laugh. I was honestly expecting you to say all the polish generals was bad because they couldn't fight the Germans and the Soviets at the same time. Feel like about 5 to 10 mintues went into quickly researching stuff just to make this list.
Eisenhower served as an aide to MacArthur in the 1930s. He later said something to the effect that the one thing he learned during that time was the art of self-promotion.
This is completely unbalanced. Montgomery won the battle of Alamein in 1942, which was a turning point in the North Africa campaign, and in the war. Yes, Arnhem was 'A Bridge Too Far', and an over ambitious failure, but the bridges over the Rhine were strategically really important to the Allied advance into Germany, and the alternative was that the Germans would just destroy them as they retreated. So Arnhem was a calculated risk that didn't come off.
I would submit that Alamein, significant as it was (The end of the beginning), was only possible thanks to the overwhelming material superiority that Montgomery had achieved over Rommel's forces. And after such a victory, he should have been able to catch the German forces before they reached Tunisia....
@@michaelram3411 They would have starved long before getting to Monty, can't supply 3 million soldiers in a theatre like North Africa, it was hard enough as it was doing it on the Eastern front.
Did bernard give you the Full Monty also - propped up fraud was anuppity nothing that didn't cross the ENGLISH Channel in 4 full years - ya field marshall.
You're certainly not a military historian. Churchill was known for firing generals, yet Monte finished the war. Rommel lasted a lot longer than he should have given the circumstances he faced. And let us not forget his tactics were used to overrun Iraqi forces during Desert Storm. Finally, MacArthur, thousands of miles behind enemy lines due to a sneak attack and hopelessly outnumbered. He had no choice but to leave the Philippines or be captured and exploited by the Japanese. His "hit them where they ain't", strategy shorted the war by years and saved countless lives. The island-hopping campaign came directly from his strategy. Don't quit your day job Gomer.
@@labla8940 I'm certainly not second-guessing Churchill. There were valid reasons for each of the firings, but he did fire generals who were probably better than Monte.
Ya, but he gets too much blame, probably for his arrogance. Baatan was horrible but he was the general that the Japanese were after. Once he got to Australia, he organized the Coalition's pacific ww2 strategy....The entire thing. That's him. You can point to Einsenhower's folly of WW2, General Eisenhower's methodical, broad‐front advance not only delayed victory but also enabled the Soviet Union, whose troops at the end of 1944 had not reached the borders of Ger many, to finish the war in May, 1945, as the master of Berlin and central Germany.
Quite right. MacArthur was a blundering idiot in the way he handled the New Guinea campaign. Australia suffered thousands of casualties, all unnecessary, as a result of Little Mac stuffing it up as the glory hound he was.
My Dad said among soldiers he met - and he had about twelve postings - Mc Arthur had the worst reputation for being an egotist with few concerns for the average soldier.
@@andrewnewton2246 My Father never met McArthur but the informal scuttlebutt about most servicemen's negative views of him quickly spread through the American forces. Something you Aussies might call "Bush Telegraph". McArthur was the stereotypical martinet with insufficient care for the average GI.
General Short and Admiral Kimmel (army and navy commanders in Hawaii, respectively) didn't know the Japanese were coming but both were sacked. MacArthur said in his memoir that, upon being told the Japanese struck Hawaii, he was certain they had suffered a great defeat. Then, instead of launching an attack on Japanese bases in Formosa with his B-17's, he let his air force get destroyed on the ground. He was awarded the Medal of Honor. It pays to know people! He didn't get any better in Korea where he ignored multiple credible reports that the Chinese were about to intervene. When they did, UN forces were forced to fall back with heavy casualties. President Truman didn't relieve him soon enough.
MacArthur had no appreciation for the conditions allied troops endured during the Nee Guinea campaign. He simply demanded results and led from the rear.
MacArthur was a 'public relations expert' with a staff for that. He disobeyed orders often and was setting himself up for political office. (just one reason Truman canned him, for example when he met with Truman in Hawaii, MacArthur had his plane circle and not land until Truman was there so it appeared Truman was greeting MacArthur rather than the other way round. His political push to have the US retake the Philippines was unnecessary and caused much distruction and death to the people of the Philippines.) 'Pretty boy', don't forget 'Dugout Doug'.
@@pamelacareysaltmer6644 : Demanding results was exactly what was required at the time. The Australian army top brass thought the Jap troops sent to New Guinea were crack troops that could not be opposed. They were going to let the Japs have the northern half of the mainland. Macarthur said, "you lazy idiots, get up in New Guinea and fight. Stop them there, not in your own mainland." So they did, and it turned out the Japs were not crack troops at all. Even though they outnumbered Australians 4:1, the Australians, made to have go by Macarthur, won. Disclaimer: my father was one of those Australian troops sent to New Guinea on Macarthur's orders. My father had a very brief gun fight one day with a Jap soldier. I'm here because my father was taught to shoot straight and the Japs were not. They were trained to make blood curdling screams. The poor Jap lost his life.
I view Monty as mediocre, but calling him one of the worst is silly. Beyond silly is including Rommel. Stopped watching at that point because this was obviously put together by an ignorant child.
Monty was overrated, and Rommel, if well supplied, would have cleaned the dude's clock in Libya. next... Oh boy-oh-boy. Had Rommel won the desert he'd next have rolled the Brits north and secured the Ploesti oil fields. The fields are about 300 miles from Istanbul, once entering Turkey he'd have added the weight of their supplies and forty-three divisions of their troops to his force. The desert in 1941 was the most critical of all the battlefields in that year. You producers have the strategic understand of a cucumber.
@jessgatt5441 Just remember... in direct engagements between the two, Monty is 2-0 against Rommel. He won at El Alamein and broke the Africa Korps and he defeated Rommel again in Normandy.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Only because Rommel lacked supplies and fuel in No Africa. In Normandy, Rommel had no tanks to confront the overly cautious Montgomery. Had the odds been equal, Rommel would have crushed Montgomery who lacked the daring of Rommel.
@@tomchirillo1663 Rommel would have never beat Montgomery, Monty unlike others didn't fall for any of rommels predictable feigned retreat tactics. Monty fought Rommel on his terms, he was a general who never danced to his opponents tune.
No friend of Australians. Belittled us in PNG. Caused many unnecessary Australian and US casualties just so he could big note himself. Always grateful to the US just not so much Douglas, his stupid hat and corn pipe. 🇦🇺👍🍺
aaah..,. actually..... there was a personality conflict between President Truman and General MacArthur. General MacArthur thought he was General of the Armies. President Truman thought he was Commander and Chief of the Armies and smarter than his military generals! in the fall of the year things were going well and Truman asked MacArthur when the conflict would end. MacArthur said the whole thing should be wrapped up before the start of the new year. Truman ordered Thanksgiving Dinner for all the allied troops. the Chinese Communist Army united with the North Korean Army and ROUTED the allies in a massive sneak attack!! MacArthur demanded of the President, atomic weapons, stating, "In a war, there is no Yellow River (the boundary between Korea and Communist China that the allies were not permitted to cross)." President Truman did not give the weapons, but instead, fired General MacArthur.
Multiple factors led to the failure of Market Gaerden. The most significant failure was General Gavin's failure to assault and Capture his main objective, Nejmegen Bridge, in so allowing German Armour to take up defensive positions, the largest single factor in causing the delay of 30 Corps. Having talked afterwards of the delay of 30 Corps advancing from Nejmegen and NOT that he caused the delay because 30 Corps hadn't had a bridge to cross. He was the cautious General, NOT Montgomery.
Macarthur An ego far too big ~ was all but a disaster in the South pacific ~ He ruined the careers of many GREAT Australian generals and senior officers that were FAR FAR more battle hardened than he ever was ! He refused to take advice on battle scenarios ~ was adamant that the Australians faced little more than 300 Japanese in the Lae campaign! When in fct the Australians and limited US numbers faced in fact more than TWO DIVISIONS ~ ( The Australians defeated the japanese in one battle alone some 600 japanese casualties !)~ It was said by some US high ranks that the combined Lae campaign was bigger and consumed more numbers and logistics than the Guadalcanal campaign ~ The campaign was almost a disaster for the allies purely because he refused to take advice and wanted the issue to simply go away, the Huon Peninsula was a distraction ~ More to the point ~ All ~ So he could do his "Cavalry charge to the Philippines"! Only high level admin pressure caused him to relent and make use ofthe resources he was hoarding for his Philippines campaign. The man was a great strategists BUT had NO concept of men and logistics on the ground. Macarthur even claimed that the Kokoda campaign was a total failure on the part of the Australians and the Australians merely fell back to the south coast through incompetence ~ In fact the Australians were outnumbered three to one ~ The Australian strategy was to fight a retreating campaign knowing the Japanese would fail through failure of logistics which is exactly what happened ~
Arthur Percival didn't tell his reinforcements he was planning to surrender,. so they were landed and walked straight into captivity without a shot being fired.
Rommel has an inflated reputation but still he was pretty good. If you have to pick a general from the north African theatre surely Gratzianni would be better. 130,000 v 25,000 and he lost an entire country...
You include Montgomery and yet don't include Markus Clarus John Lucas or Arthur Percival. Name me another disaster that Monty was responsible for ? I take it your knowledge of military begins and ends with Hollywood movies ?
Here we go again. Montgomery did NOT PLAN 'Market Garden'. The original plan 'Comet' WAS Montgomery's, this plan was aborted. The 82nd and 101st American Divisions were then added to the forces at which point the Commander of the 1st Airborne Army then took over the plan, this General was Brereton. It was the changes which Brereton made to the 'Comet' concept which led to the disaster. The changes included: 1. Daylight para. drops instead of the night glider drops which M had planned. 2. Drop zones moved away from the bridges - this allowed the Germans to blow the Son bridge before the 101st arrived, it also had a disastrous effect at Arnhem 3. Drops spread over three days. Any element of surprise was lost. Further it was Gavin's (82nd) mistake to not capture the Nijmagen bridge, it was not captured until the XXX Corps arrived (post war Gavin admitted this mistake) Even the ridiculous film 'A Bridge too Far' stated the bridges were to be captured with 'thunderclap surprise'.
@@isaaccowan5316 When the Germans fled East after their defeat in Normandy they had few resources to defend Belgium and southern Holland "low counries'. It wasn't a tactic learned from WW1 it was because they had been routed. Saved only by Eisenhower's idiotic "Broad Front" strategy, which allowed them to regroup near the German border.
There was an entire army hospital in Fort Sill Oklahoma where the main topic of conversation was how and in what way they would do away with MacArthur.
How about Patton doing his own thing and searching for personal glory, no matter what it cost or how his irresponsible actions impacted the ability of other commanders. Patton was right up there with the worst.
Except he never lost a battle, so how can he be considered the worse? His only "loss" of the war was when he sent an outrageously small platoon, with no support, to liberate a POW camp his son-in-law was at. Now that was Marx Bros. level stupidity on Patton's part. Other than that, he was the most winningest general of WWII among the western allies. I believe Zhukov was the most winning general of the entire war.
@@tedwojtasik8781 Patton was stopped dead at Metz and was forced to sit on his backside for 3 whole months while he assembled an overwheming number of men and tanks because he needed that to beat the Germans. It took Patton twice as long to capture Metz as it took Monty to capture Caen and that makes Monty twice as fast as patton.
@@tedwojtasik8781I wouldn’t call Patton the worst, but he certainly wasn’t a good general. In Operation Torch, he completely ignored the planning of loading his landing craft and ships, so that certain critical materiel was missing while he had some useless junk on hand. Rookie mistake to ignore your logistics. So there was no excuse when he did the exact same thing during Operation Husky. He was all about rushing headlong into battle and didn’t want to think about supplies or equipment, roads or transportation. A general doesn’t have to do this organization himself, but he absolutely does have to ensure that it is done, and Patton simply did not care… subsequently many lives were lost unnecessarily.
In defense of Gamelin, I must say that after two weeks of hiking across the Ardennes, it is hard to believe anyone could launch a motorized offensive through those heavily wooded, steep valleys.
I don’t remember exactly, but i believe the French generals under the command of Gamelin/Weygand had quite the freedom to prepare their own defences. Charles Huntziger is more to blame as he neglected the proper preparations needed to defend against the Germans coming through the Ardennes, a strategy Huntziger refused to believe could happen.
The Ardennes is much more heavily forested now than it was in 1940. Today, it is literally impossible to move an army through there. Back then, it was incredibly risky, but feasible.
@@albertopiergiorgi5980 It's called "I have been in the place" and "I know how a tank works", so yes, there's some logic in my words. The Ardennes are pretty much impassable for 1940s armored vehicles. That's an educated observation. Try offering a counterpoint instead of behaving like an emo teenager to get a cheap laugh from the rest of the class.
These sort of videos are gross simplifications and putting the blame on commanders such as the French pair does not take into account other factors. I would mention the absence of a French standing army as the left wing politicians thought it would be used to repress freedom, so practically the whole army where short duration reservists who were not very good at mechanised warfare. Also it is not unusual for generals to think the next war will be like the last. Oh, and the German plan was actually quite good.
Market Garden achieved most of its objectives. Can't really call it a failure. Then the forces charged with linking up the airborne landings stopped for the nights instead of pushing on in what was a time sensitive operation. Add that Montgomery had wanted the commanding officer of said unit removed before the operation, so it's not correct to blame Montgomery for the advances slow progress
Who do you think was the worst and who do you think was the best of all the generals?
I think the worst is the AI you used to write this script.
Gamelon. wrong on pretty much all aspects.
I'm too busy lamenting that none would be as stupid as the misinformed cretin who decided to include Montgomery on this list. Also Rommel could be argued to be sometimes overrated, but was by no means a bad general.
Too many errors. MacArthur's worst disaster was the huge number of Australian casualties directly caused by Little Mac and his stupid strategy in New Guinea. Your list overlooks the horror that was Mark Clarke. Your list ignores Gamelin's worst mistake, attempting to intervene in the Netherlands and using up France's only reserves to do it. Weygand was irrelevant to your list; the 1940 French campaign was already lost when he was appointed.
Your list omits the disaster that was Hans Halder in botching Operation Barbarossa.
Your list omits the disaster that was Marshal Graziani who lost more than 200,000 prisoners to an army he had outnumbered by about three times.
Your list omits General Percival who botched the British campaign in Malaya so badly that Britains largest mass surrender took place in Singapore 1942.
Given these omissions, it's hard to take your list seriously.
Unsubscribing
Interesting - no Mark Clark who could have cut off a huge part of the German army in Italy but decided to take Rome - for the publicity.
And his own glory and place in the history books!
Could have should have would have.... hindsight is a wonderful thing isnt it
I don't think hindsight has a great deal to do with it, his motives were patently obvious and criticised even at the time. Not to mention the disastrous Gari river battle.
He was more interested in becoming the next Caeser.
All-lies military and politicians, as now, make war looking at the media only. Losses ensuing are good, human sacrifices to their "handlers".
Including Monty in this list is simply ludicrous when you exclude someone such as Mark Clark. Nonsense. Why not include Eisenhower for dismissing Monty's pleas to take Berlin before the Soviets?
aaah.... actually..... Eisenhower was a great 'politician'. he proved this in his arrangement of the Korean War cease fire, making a North Korea and a South Korea.
Agreed why no Mark Clarke this man cost many thousands of allied troops lives.
By glory hunting to take Rome.
And that wasn't his only sin
What was the point in taking Berlin? The division of rump Germany in zones had already been decided in Yalta, and taking Berlin would have cost thousands of soldiers' lives just to give it back to the Soviets, in whose zoke Berlin was.
@@sobelou, well said.
Taking Berlin cost the Soviets 350,000 men.@@sobelou
By your logic, every general in history was bad because they at some point suffered defeat or made questionable decisions.
Napoleon must be a really bad general as he left behind thousands of soldiers in Egypt, made mistakes and had hundreds of thousands of soldiers die under his command
😂😂😂 dumb video. Typical computer chair idiots made this.
Napoleon was a bad general
New flash! Napoleon wasn’t that great of a general, he n case you don’t know it his enemies were a lot more incompetent.
Napoleon was a bad general because he lost at Waterloo
@@Amsfootboy79 News flash! France’s national football team is actually not that good because they primarily face bad opposition and lost to Argentina in the WC Final.
You mention Montgomery in the very first few seconds of the video, yet you don’t mention his achievements in North Africa where the 8th Army pursued the German and Italian forces something like 1,500 miles in around a week and then successfully fight a couple of battles and then push the enemy back into Tunisia. His role in Sicily where the British and Canadians were fighting the bulk of the enemy forces, while Patton was away doing literately his own thing. You also failed to mention that Montgomery was the Allied Ground Commander for DDay and commanded the troops on the ground during the initial assault and subsequent battle for Normandy which was concluded under his generalship in less time than the allied planners had projected.
Those that criticise his failure to take Caen on DDay fail to realise that 3rd British Infantry Division were told capture it if you can but if not ensure that the enemy can’t use it to launch counterattack attacks. They also fail to realise or just ignore the fact that the British and Canadians faced the bulk of the enemy forces including 8 panzer divisions and the 3 heavy panzer battalions with Tiger and King Tigers for much of the battle. Despite this when the battle was over they still had achieved it with less casualties than the US troops.
Montgomery’s role in Market Garden was minimal at best, his original idea of using the British 1st Airborne Division and the Polish Parachute Brigade was part of his plan to gain a bridgehead on the Rhine in accordance to the orders issued to him and Bradley by Eisenhower in late August for both army groups to gain bridgeheads over the Rhine as soon as possible.
Operation Comet which was based on his idea was planned with an expected launch date of around the 4th September and it was then cancelled on the 10th by Montgomery due to increased German resistance, reports of German units in the Arnhem area and the fact that the ground forces jumping off point of Eindhoven hadn’t been liberated.
Market Garden was Eisenhower’s as he tasked Brereton at 1st Allied Airborne Army to take the Comet plan as the basis for a bigger plan which became Market Garden. It was planned by predominantly American staff officers who made the decisions on the drop zones, the one lift a day so as not to tire out the aircrew and removed the coup de main attacks on all the bridges bar Grave.
You also forgot to mention that he was given command of the 9th and part of the 1st Armies during the battle of the bulge, stabilising the situation to allow the troops to regroup and rebuild and then counterattack.
It was also he who the Germans initially approached in May to surrender the units in his area to which he refused and said it must be all German forces on the western front not just those facing the 21st Army Group.
When you look at all that if Montgomery was one of the worst then I hate to think what the others were like.
Monty bashing in particular and British bashing in general is quite a popular sport across the pond even to the point where there are small digs in movies and mini series of things that are just added for no reason than to have a dig at the British.
Monty waited until he had an overwhelming material advantage in a position where they could not be outflanked. Then used that material advantage to chase beaten poorly supplied army.
Market-Garden was rushed with some poor planning (expecting untried equipment to work) and poor reconnaissance (they did not know the 21st Panzer Division was there).
@@frosty3693 Check out by how much Bradley outnumbered the Germans for COBRA and then come back and tell me about an Army that needs that much to defeat the Germans. Germans who had the stuffing knocked out of them by Monty.
@@frosty3693 .
But did result in the Nijmegen salient, which was a thorn in the German's side, leading to heavy losses in their failed attempts to retake it.
You need to read some proper books on Arnhem. The planning was done by Airborne command and not Monty. Airborne had had quite a few operations planned and then called off in the period before Market Garden and were therefore eager to get stuck in (otherwise why have an Airborne command in the first place?). Air support in terms of transport and offensive craft were limited by the air forces due to availability and fear of German flak. They all knew of the one open road leading to Arnhem (the Dutch had had pre-war manoeuvres along it so knew its dangers well), they were aware of the Panzer division resting locally but chose to ignore these due to their eagerness into getting into action.
Many Americans believe Montgomery slowed our advance and allowed Berlin to be taken by the Russians.
But we tend to forget, the British won the war by themselves and the Americans were just in the way.
Not sure why General Guy Simonds or Crerar did not accept "Keller was yeller" resignation or relieve him.
MacArthur was a better publicist then general. There was, for example, no reason to invade the Philippines.
I think the Filipinos would beg to differ.
Hard disagree.
All allied forces in the Pacific were to be led by Gen. MacArthur in the invasion of Japan; requiring multiple staging areas that included air bases in China. From where should the assaults against the air base be mounted? It was decided that the Philippines was the best choice. Read: "Luzon Versus Formosa" by Robert Ross Smith
@@jackflack5294 thank you. I will read what you suggested. However, it is my belief that the entire southern thrust through the northern Solomons, New Guinei, Peleilu and the Philippines was unnecessary. Okinawa should have provided a sufficient base for the invasion of Japan. MacArthur drove this thrust against the advise of many others. Roosevelt should have stood up to him. A million died as a result of the invasion of the Philippines. Incidentally, my wife’s uncle died on I w o Jima, the invasion of which was likely also unnecessary. Of course, we are all geniuses in hindsight.
@@KR72534 When you say "a million died" as a result of the liberation of Philippines, are you saying that these were U.S. troops? Even if you including civilian, non-combatant deaths, I would say 1 million is too large a number
Mark Clark was the very worst. He was only interested in personal “glory”, for instance allowing the German army to escape and fight another day while he marched “triumphantly” into the already captured Rome.
Yep ! ❤
Exactly so. Clark was indeed awful. His botching of the Anzio operation was appalling. His handling of the Battle of Casino was simply incompetent.
I agree Clarke got the command by default when Ike sent Patton packing for slapping a sick private. Then with a chance to surround the Germans in Italy on the outskirts of Rome Clarke went glory gathering letting the entire German army escape while the Canadians and British wanted to get the enemy troops done with and have success . The Allies were fighting in Italy until the end of the war. Mark Clarke was the worst.
@@colinhunt4057 well my dad was up the hill 3rd battle! Casino, but it was his / Clark’s entrance into Rome 04/06/1944’ that made even more people that should have survived not ! At the end of the day ! So to speak
@@ronmailloux8655 actually the war in Italy ended a month before! May ! So April ? My dad helped that ! Took out a German Area HQ , officers late 44’ as they were abandoning it
The brief cases full of not burnt documents
MacArthur? Rommel? And no Mark Clark? Your list is lame.
Thank you. I was going to say Rommel and MacArthur. Of which i am no big fan of Mac's but WOW some head scratchers....
Don't agree with some on the list however, shocked that Mark Clark was missing
General MacArthur was not a great general. He was an arrogant stupid ass. He made many mistakes. His arrogance is what created his problem. He had a lot of help. So Jerry MacArthur was not that great of a general.
@@bradleyupdyke9492 MacArthur has his critics and his defenders, and they are both right. I met a man many years ago who served under him, called him Dugout Doug. But armies under MacArthur suffered fewer casualties than any other commander during the war.
Snap! Mark Clark, the man who preferred the photo op of marching into Rome to trapping German forces in Italy. Le merde de la merde.
This video didn’t seem fully researched or put together.
But they have a hipster who likes to wave his hands as the narrator! 😉
I Agree. Disapointed.
It is a shame. Grudge must fire him
Worst Generals of WW II
- Percival
- Maurice Gamelin
- Maxime Weygand
- Herman Goering
- Mac Arthur
- Clark
-
There is no way Montgomery or Rommel should be on this list .
.
You mean Luftwaffen Meyer . ITS a mock Name . That fat duchebag once Said: If one Bomber ever crosses in to Germanys airspace you can call me Meyer. Well guess what happenend.
Percival for sure 😢😩🙈
MacArthur shouldnt even be on list youre delusional as hell if you think he should.
Why Clark?
\
@@jimkeats891 Why? Because Clark was more interested in becoming the next Roman Emperor than cutting off a retreating German army
To put some of these guys in a video of Worst generals is ridiculous.. Sure some had some mistakes and shortcomings but Rommel and MacArthur? Really?
MacArthur left his own man to die in the Bataan Death March while he hopped on a sub to Australia, he is a piece of trash. And every single one of my fellow Marines will all say the same thing
And my great uncle was one of the men who died in that
Macarthur took more territory with fewer casualties (most of which were due to disease) than any American General ever. And Rommel did more with less than many commanders in history
@@dolorusedd2586 he was a piece of trash. The real brains in the Pacific theater was the two 5 Star Fleet Admirals Chester Nimitz and William “Bull” Halsey Jr.
@@dolorusedd2586 along with Major General Vandegrift and Lieutenant General Geiger
A video created by people who have zero knowledge about what they are talking about.
I would certainly add to this "top 10" list the American general (Courtney Hodges) responsible for the unimaginative and terribly costly Hürtgen Forest campaign (Sept. - Nov. 1944) -- " the longest single battle the U.S. Army has ever fought" (Wiki). A campaign that resulted in anywhere from 33,000 to 55,000 American casualties, and has been described as an Allied "defeat of the first magnitude."
More Wiki: "[H]istory professor and academician, Paul Fussell, blames the impracticality of Lt. General Courtney Hodges' command and untrained troops' demoralization for the defeat in the battle, citing the violation of Patton's observation that 'Plans should be made by those who are going to execute them.' "
"Plans should be made by those who are going to execute them.' " ---that's not how things work 99% of the time in the Army. You always have the high ups planning and the rest executing the plan. As someone who has been in the Army, I can tell you that "ordinary soldiers" usually do not have any idea of what is going to happen until it is time for it.
@@User-jr7vf What about "Mission Command" where soldiers down to NCO's excersise initiative?
@@User-jr7vf The ultimate execution of strategy and planning is always a burden borne by troops on the ground. However, I'm sure that the "execution" in the quoted statement has nothing to do with the grunts -- it instead pertains to the concept that those of high rank who devise a major plan should be the same individual or individuals who see it through to its execution.
Hodges should have been repl. by Joe Collins, 7th Corps Commander.
Well, let's just imagine the magnitude of leaks if every private was informed beforehand what the command was planning. @@User-jr7vf
Having Montgomery and Rommel in there is ridiculous.
yeah i agree they were both great generals, but even Rommel couldnt shift the Aussies(with others) from Tobruk
lol are you a british torie?
@@ChristianTheJew no mate im neither of those, im an Aussie
@@davecannabis The Aussies shouldnt have even been there
@@JohnSmith-rw8uh Australia was under threat of attack from Japan. The lads joined other Commonwealth nations and IMO as such did more than their share in winning a war. Maybe they didn't have to be there but they were. Cheers.
Seeing Rommel and MacArthur on the list makes all this list nonsense.
You forgot to include the self promoted, totally useless general: Charles DeGaulle in the list !
Vive De Gaulle 🇨🇵🇨🇵🇨🇵
@@surprise_he was a prat and did France no favours on the world stage
A list of worst generals and you do not include 4 star Mark W Clark tells me you don't know the subject very well.
As far as equipment, France was better equipped than the Wehrmarct. Sadly and tragically, not better led!
Read Field Marshall Slim's book "Defeat into Victory" about the Burma campaign
It's a good history but disappoints when you get to how Slim treated Oliver Leese when he was sent to take over all command in that theatre.
The Guardsman was sent to take the glory of retaking Malaya. @@stigmontgomery7901
Rommel? Monty? Really? Terrible list. Patton should be on the list if they are.
Explain please.
@@HeimirTommMonty didn’t physically assault his own troops
Don’t be ridiculous. Patton was an incredible strategist and probably the most feared general the Yanks had. Whole German armies were relocated and either held up or displaced simply due to rumours of where Patton would be and what he intended for his troops. The subterfuge the Allies engaged in, using Patton as their mark, severely hampered the Germans. Not to mention how his 3rd Army ran over everything in their way in early 45.
@@mikemanner9811Amen!!
@@mikemanner9811 Patton was indeed a good general, but he's often portrayed as someone the Germans feared he wasn't. The Germans never had a Abwehr unit that personally analysed Patton, who never rose above Army command.
Why no General Mark Clark?
Agree to busy seeking glory
Hard to fault Rommell when he was basically given scraps with which to conquer North Africa.
Time and time again he was denied more equipment, tanks, planes, fuel as the invasion of the Soviet Union was taking up all of Germany's resources.
In fact Rommel's advances were often curtailed not because of enemy action but because of low fuel and the need to wait for more shipments which often didn't arrive or arrived half full. German forces often only continue to be operational because of captured American and British fuel stocks which kept the engines running.
As Rommel once put it "If i had the resources the Americans and British have, I would have conquered half the world by now"
Well you also have to factor in, huge amounts of supplies and equipment sent to him were sent to the bottom of the Med. Not taking Malta ended up being a huge blunder for the Axis.
It seems strange to have him and montgomery on the list. They are probably included as 'overrated' rather than actually worst. 'overrated' as a descriptions for Rommel can be defended, as he is highly regarded for partially political reasons, but what he did with the resources available to him was still extremely impressive. Contrast with Lloyd Fredendall it becomes a little absurd. However, his performance after Africa was not terribly impressive - but by then I suspect his heart wasn't in it.
@@CallioNyx What is always disregarded is the nature of a retreat, to the tabloid Press every one is a disaster. In El Alamein I the British, Commonwealth and Allied troops conducted a disciplined retreat under fire. The Royal Navy developed the strategies need to interdict Rommel's supply lines. It even gave time for the LRDG and SAS to develop.
All of that contributed to the success of El Alamein II, included by most historians as one of the three most important battles of WWII, with Stalingrad and Midway.
Montgomery's success was in fighting off the politicians, including Churchill, who would have had him begin the attack without the necessary advantages needed to 'guarantee' victory.
@@pax6833
The thing with Malta was a failure above Rommel's level. He is blamed for diverting the supplies that would be needed for that operation - in driving east towards Cairo but the entire logistical effort in Africa and the Med was at a level far above him. They should have done whatever they had to do to take Malta and they didn't do it. If a small fraction of the resources put into Barbarossa had been put into the Med - they'd have turned it into an Axis Lake.
.
@@CallioNyx Rommel's plan to have his tanks forward was the best chance the Germans had to defeat the Allies at the waters edge. If they were allowed even a day to get ashore - there was no kicking them out - and Rommel knew that. He also knew that if the tanks were right there at the start - Allied Air would keep them from getting there soon enough to make any difference.
The Allies probably would have succeeded no matter what Rommel did - but - his plan was better than what they did do.
.
The greatest general of the second world war was none other than Field Marshal Sir William Slim
It took the publications of his book for the world to wake up to it. A great read with much praise for the Indian troop, some Chinese generals and lots of scorn for the British Army in India that had nothing prepared as the army staggered out of Burma.
@@paulstreet9162 Ahhh yes but the Brit Army did not stagger back in.
Thank you for putting Gamelin and Weygand at the top of the list. French high command was almost single-handedly responsible for France's defeat in 1940.
Yes, though to be fair French politicians and industrialists of the 20s and 30s also contributed - they mostly pushed for various ideas and concepts that turned out to be fundamentally flawed.
@@KPW2137 Yes, that's true as well.
@user-aero68 Gamelin particularly. He destroyed France's defenses by diverting the entire strategic reserve on a pointless excursion into the Netherlands. So when the Germans broke through, there was no reserve to contain them. Keep a reserve in place and the German breakthrough would have been stopped or made much more difficult. It was Maurice Gamelin who lost the Battle of France in 1940.
It was Maurice Gamelin who prevented France and Britain from intervening to support Czechoslovakia in 1938. The Czechs were better armed than the Germans with a strong, well equipped army. With France, Britain and the Soviet Union allied in support, Hitler would have been crushed if he still tried to attack the Czechs. But Maurice said "non", and that was the end of the alliance to stop the Nazis at the time.
@@KPW2137 Yes that is another reason as well.
Why is it people ignore the situation France was in late in the 1930's? France had lost the largest amount of lives in the first World War and that translated to a very low birth rate. France simply didn't have the people for an army and/or for production of weapons. That meant as hostilities looked imminent they were facing a charging elephant with only a BB gun. France could have saved itself some trouble and made it's own peace deal with Germany but stood up against them while the US was selling them everything under the sun and US industrialists were helping Germany speed up it's war production. The French had no choice but hope fortification would be enough along with the help of British and commonwealth forces. To make matters worse their neighbour who was afraid to give Germany any reason to see it as an enemy refused to allow foreign troops over it's border. The long held plan had always been for French and BEF forces to move up into Belgium and using natural barriors to help stop Germanys advance. Of course the Belgians realized to late Germany was always going to invade but by then the road west was wide open for Germany. Also French orders for military supplies from the US never arrived in time. The P40's ordered were not even shipped by the fall of France and were suppose to have gone to the UK but they went to FDR's illegal mercenary air force in China being delivered via Pearl Harbour. By the fall they were landed in China and reassembled ready for US pilots to use against Japanese aircraft attacking the Chinese. So much for the idea the US was attacked without provocation. Now if anyone had an idea of what France could have done different with it's limited resources and personnel please share and I will seriously look at it.
I would hardly think Monty was one of the worst generals, He was mostly successful, just to focus on Market Garden is disingenuous to his other successes.
very correct. apparently its STILL fashionable among 'mercuns to critique the guy that always had fewer men and less eqpt than the enemy OR other allies and STILL wound up batting .950
It was overly ambitious and risky with many thing needing to go right in the chain if event for it not to fail. But so was the D-day operations. They knew from the start it was a big and risky gamble but the reward of ending the war so much earlier was too tempting.
Oh, you mean his other "successes" like failing to capture Caen on D-Day?
@@jacqueschouette7474 Caen was an objective for D-Day itself, but it was not the sole goal for the campaign. The point that is made in "Decision in Normandy" has to do with the CAMPAIGN objectives, not the objectives for the campaign's first day.
The Normandy campaign ENDED when the German pocket at Falaise was liquidated and the Allies began to pursue the Germans toward the Seine River and then towards Germany.
Monty was a set piece tactician and he often missed opportunities when he had the enemy on the run. His style definitely cost the British more lives. His greatest success was El Alamein.
Montgomery and Rommel were overrated not bad generals those are 2 different things
I hate to say it, but Rommel was very good. It was his lack of supplies that did him in. Allied attacks on German cargo ships in the Mediterranean was impactful in his defeat in North Africa.
@@stuartdamon3610 Overrated doesn't mean incompetent or bad just means he was not the great military genius that he is portrayed by people
@@rankoorovic7904Yes I can can agree that he wasn't incompetent. He was the best. If you are looking the word incompetent - search Josif Stalin and hers circus.
@@FyodorUshakovSuka Stalin adapted so did his generals the generals serving the Austrian painter didn't
@@rankoorovic7904 Atleast painter could paint decent paintings but Stalin could just rob banks.
Montgomery, MacArthur, and Rommel? This may be the worst list I've ever seen.
Australian General Gordon Bennett should be on the list for his low act on leaving behind 15,000 of his fellow countrymen to become POW’s to the Japanese in Singapore
Quite amazing that he gave up to an enemy that had not attacked him, that was almost out of ammo and completely out of food causing most of the Japanese to be starving for many days before even getting to Singapore. Never read of his subsequent treatment by the Japanese but I imagine they treated him royally for saving them from a huge impending loss. Win or lose Generals always live high on the hog.
Yes, Bennett certainly was a cowardly grub, but so too was the commander of the Australian POW's in Changi. He stripped lower ranked men of their uniforms so his officers had nice neat clothes to wear. When you consider that it was the "other" ranks who were doing all the work, ( officers didn't have to work, ) he obviously was more interested in appearances over welfare!
@@douglasthompson2740 Bennett's Australians fought as hard as they could, they were 13% of the forces and took 73% of battle deaths in the campaign. The decision to surrender rather than counterattack was made by Percival, Bennett had no choice but to follow orders and can't be blamed for Percival's lack of understanding.
He could have chosen to go into captivity with his men, rather than flee in a small boat and pass on the lessons of the disaster to the allies. That would have been romantic, but being romantic wasn't his job.
@@douglasthompson2740 that was Percival that ordered the surrender of Commonwealth Forces at Singapore, not Bennett.
Very worst general - Charles de Gaul. Not even close. When Germany invaded France he was on the first plane out of the country. Deserter #1 fled to England.
Once there he inserted himself into the British MoD and berated the British generals saying, "If I was there I would have done it this way..." and "I would have done it better..."
You WERE there and you fled the country you coward. When he came back with the British troops he stopped in Paris while the rest of the Allies pushed the Germans out of France.
Benedict Arnold was a much better general than Charles de Gaul. I can't think of a single worse general in all of history.
De Gaulle was supremely arrogant (not unusual for a general) but he wasn't a coward and he wasn't a bad general. De Gaulle was one of the few French who seemed to understand the use of armored forces and mobility almost as well as some German military minds such as Guderian.
When France was invaded, de Gaulle counterattacked and kept attacking, even when told to retreat. Yes he escaped from France when the government itself was giving up, but he had at least a symbolically important role with the Free French and Resistance. He did enter Paris which the Germans had left as an open city, and he was likely thinking of his political career at that point. But the "coward" label doesn't really fit him.
Benedict Arnold was a great general and fearless leader, but he got caught up in petty arguments over money and being denied recognition for his accomplishments (such as Saratoga), and decided to help the British win the war. In the USA, Arnold is rightly viewed as a traitor but no one would say he wasn't a skilled military leader.
"Worst general ever" would be tough to determine, but it wouldn't be de Gaulle or Arnold. PQ Varus lost 3 Roman legions at the Teutoburg Forest to German "barbarians", so there's an ancient candidate for "worst ever". Semyon Budyonny was a Soviet officer who failed to appreciate tanks, and felt horse cavalry was superior. Nevertheless he commanded a large number of Soviet troops as Germany invaded, and lost over 1 million men in a few months - including the huge Uman and Kiev encirclements (aka "pockets"). Arthur Percival lost Singapore in WWII despite outnumbering the Japanese invaders more than 2:1. So there are many contenders.
Vive De Gaulle 🇨🇵🇨🇵🇨🇵
The best answer anyone ever gave DeGaulle came from Dean Rusk. When DeGaulle said he wanted every American soldier off French soil. Rusk asked if we should take our dead too.
It's very easy to criticise the military top brass - all commanders make errors at some point, as they are human after all; but what is not so easily understood are the many and varied conditions and mitigating circumstances that they are faced with. Strategies and tactics cannot be over-simplified as there are political shenanigans as well as supply, forces available, weather comditions etc, etc to be taken into account. Commanders are mainly appointed by Presidents and politicians as much as the military heirarchies, and in mre than a few instances, little account is ever taken of the appointees' capabilities - in Britain known as "The Old Boy Neteork." It should also be understood the the US had the greater preponderance of troops and supplies than the British and Commonwealth nations, and as a result were expected to become "the leading force."
When one considers the fact that the US had never really ever won a war of any great impact - indeed, the oldest generals had rarely fought anyone other than the indigenous American Indians, and even in WW1 they had to be taught modern warfare. On the other hand, Britain had been fighting European and Colonial ways throughout its history, and in the main had kept pace with military advances and capability.
However, in WW2, although fighting in a whole variety of theatres, they were placed second to to the US, and yes, both powers had their lesser-qualified commanders.
I have to disagree with the narrator with regard to Montgomery. "Monty" had fought throughout WW1 and had become a strong strategist, gaining high command as a result. He was cautious, but only because of the bad planning and the tremendous loss of life in WW1 - he did not want a repeat performance in WW2.
North Africa had been given two generals - Anderson, who like Mongomery, understood warfare, but failed to get the tanks ands artillery he needed. Without those his battle pland failed - hardly his fault. He was eplaced by Auchimleck, whod exactly the same problems - needing proper materiele to fight Rommel, but not getting them. Monty is then appointed, and flatly stated that he could do nothing without the proper equipment; he demanded it, and he got it, and the result was that he won the North African Campaign.
Operation Torch was a disaster from the start. The failure of the US Forces to assist the British in the final push, resulted in the British having to come to the rescue, after the Americans lost a tank division in the first few hours, followed by the loss of an infantry division. Bad leadershgip at all levels!
The best American General was without doubt Bradley. Patton should have been cashiered (fired) as a result of his general conduct and treatment of junior soldiers. McArthur should have been sent home sfter is initial failures. Mark Clark was a cowby out for glory - not a great leader. No single British Commander other than Percival deserved replaement - and those that were was "political" rather than any other reason. Percival was placed in an impossible situation; on a small island that had its fixed gun batteries facing the wrong direction, with no chance of support from the mainland, Percival rightly chose to surrender his forces rather than have them wiped out by superior Japanese trroops, tanks and artillery. Perhaps it was a wrong choice, since many of his men died from disease, starvation and brutal treatment in the Jap prison camps.
As I say, the varied circumstances dictate the end analysis. However, the calibre of the generals has to be taken into account. On the US side, the calibre of all officers has raised many questions, for so many were conscripted men who had no experience of military life, whereas throught it its history (until 1916) the British had always had a voluntary service system, and it men were therefore trained into professional military service. Most of it senior officers had learned their trade during WW1 and it many other wars, so it's not surprising that they had mainly good calibre, professional leaders.
So when making the claims as this narrator has done, it seems clear that his research is not as good as he might suggest. Nevertheless, an interesting insight into the American mindset!
Well said. Auchinleck was an excellent commander who knew he had the troops but lacked the equipment and supplies. The fact that he got up Churchill's nose, and wouldn't treat him with any respect probably supports your 'politicking' argument. If I have a criticism of Montgomery, it's that he underestimated his Indian troops, who made up most of the 8th Army when he arrived. Having been an Indian Army (as opposed to British Army of India) officer for most of his career, Auchinleck knew how good and how tenacious they were, but Montgomery held off until he could get more of the 'home' troops that he better understood.
@@unclenogbad1509
I'm inclined to agree with you. Indian troops could be hard to maneage due in the main to their caste syste; but under good leadershid foght extremely well. Montgomery and Patton hated each other, and while Monty wasn't without his faults, he was a much better commander than old "Blood and Guta" who thought himself better than evryone. I don't think I would have liked him as my ally!! He was not a tactician in any true sense, believeing the best way to enter a fight was basically in a straight line, head to head. With leass of an attitude he could have been a really good commander. Monty was "ols school" and master of the grand plan, except that his staff were noy as competent. he needed Alexander, for together they were a match for the enemy.
@@reggriffiths5769 I agree there. Patton was really just a tank captain who'd brown-nosed his way the ranks. He may have been the most useful general the Wehrmacht ever had.
@@unclenogbad1509 Hahaha....nuff sed!"
@@reggriffiths5769 Yeah i'd swap Montgomery on this list for Mark Clark
Mutaguchi didn't conquer Singapore. General Tomoyuki Yamashita did. Percival surrendered to Yamashita who was the General on the ground in charge of the Malaysian invasion in 1942
Probably one of the worst reviews ive watched on generals. As a Brit, I agree Montgomery should be on the list but by far the worst general the allies had was Mark Clark - not even mentioned therefore I have to doubt the credibility of this list
It's certainly surprising how Markus Aurelius Clarkus is not on the list.
Beevor is about the worst British WW2 writer about. Along with Hastings.
It might help your case(s), Grunge, if you didn't play so fast and loose with the facts. For example, you blame the carnage of Peleliu on MacArthur when he never had command of the operation -- the island and the operations there fell under the command authority of Chester Nimitz. None of the American units involved were under MacArthur's command, and he had no part in the planning or execution of capture of Peleliu (Operation Stalemate II).
Yes that is what I read. I do not like MacArthur but he should not be blamed for something he had no part in.
MacArthur was very much responsible for Peleliu. Taking Peleliu was part of MacArthur's operation to retake the Philippines. The entire Philippines operation was unnecessary, The Navy preferred Formosa but FDR greenlighted the Philippines instead.
@@brucenorman8904 No he was not he is not even mentioned in the ORBAT
They are all USMC
A huge blunder of this video indeed ! It was Nimitz operation !!
The Marine commander also pulled back US Army troops who were doing a great job on Peleliu so the final victory could be an all Marine one.
Mark Clark ?
John Lucas of Anzio fame as well.
You must be joking. I don't know many generals that didn't suffer a setback but to put Monty and MacArthur in the same boat as a real loser like Fredendall is simply crazy. Not only did Monty settle British forces in North Africa, the triumph at Alamein was, as Churchill put it, "the end of the beginning." Montgomery was very casualty conscious - that explains his caution. When it came to the planning of DDay, it was Monty that insisted on five divisions landing on the beaches instead of three. He wasn't try to fail near Caen but he was indeed trying to draw German armor toward his front and this did help Cobra immensely. See Ian Hamilton's splendid trilogy on Monty's career for the details. I've spent ten years of my life examining MacArthur's campaigns and I've read the rubbish of every MacArthur hater in the US and Oz. I'll certainly grant he was a bad subordinate, but his insistence on defending the PI was needed to keep Quezon in the war - and the retreat was very well handled - check the Green Book volume. The rest of his operations in WWII were noteworthy for remarkable economy of force, speed and low cost relative to objectives gained. BTW: among his biggest fans were British CS Alan Brooke and Montgomery. And Rommel? And you let a dunces like Bradley and Hodges off the hook? And Percival doesn't make your loser list? Your subscribers are getting miserable history here.
I think Mac's insistence on P.I. was wrong. Nimitz wanted to go to Taiwan (Formosa) cut off everything to the south, and proceed up the Ryukyus to the home islands.
@@ThomasNoonan-qc8vp Hmmm. Nope. It was King that had decided a move to Formosa was the best next step. Nimitz made the argument in Hawaii for FDR but MacArthur had the better of it. In point of fact, Nimitz didn't want to go to Formosa either, and did think that a major American base in Luzon - preferably Manila Bay - would be invaluable to help cut off Japan from it's natural resources from the East Indies and perhaps serve as a base for a potential invasion. It's true that King would have liked to junk the SW Pacific advance altogether, but events proved him wrong on that one. The drive up New Guinea - and bypassing Rabaul - meant the "Resource Zone" was crippled and ultimately made worthless. It was for this reason that the Japanese stripped Manchuria and China of troops and deployed nearly a million men to garrison the East Indies, New Guinea, and the PI. This redeployment started in late 1943 before US subs had prevented moving Japanese forces. Had the Japanese had only needed to concentrate on a drive up the Central Pacific (which would have included a stop somewhere in the PI) places like Saipan would have had garrisons three times the size they did. (It's important to realize that places like Iwo and Okinawa were weakly defended up to a few weeks before the American invasion.) It also meant that the American forces deployed to the SW Pacific for Cartwheel would have been almost impossible to redeploy and hence wasted. As it was the Japanese were forced to split their defensive effort and ended up with half a million men not firing a shot - not at least against American soldiers - civilians in the occupied areas weren't always so lucky.
That list is shit. How is Clark not on that list. No way Rommel was worse than Clark.
Montgomery is hated primarily because... it is popular to hate him. Just remember he was the one who kicked Rommel's ass!
As for Operation Market Garden it was the deepest single penetration of the Western Allies during the entire war so to consider it a failure is just malignant propaganda. Even with this hiccup included Montgomery's casualty rate for the entire war was still lower than the average for similarly ranked generals.
The Americans and pretty much only the Americans hate Montgomery. An imperfect man but still a very competent general. .
I don't agree Montgomery is in that list, neither should Rommel. Both were very capable Generals with faults. I also wouldn't say Montgomery kicked Rommel's ass. That happened mainly because of the superior supply to the British forces enjoyed at that stage in Africa. And that was in big part an American achievement. With equal supplies Rommel would likely have taken Egypt. His tactics were superior to Monty's.
It is not possible to make the statement that Rommel's tactics were superior to Monty's. At that stage of the desert war you are equating apples with pears. Prior to Monty, he had been fighting a largely successful fluid campaign against inferior British commanders. He had eventually come to a halt at Alamein when Monty finally took over command. So Monty had not been involved in any of Rommel's successful battles prior to that. So you have no way of equating them. Rommel lost the set piece battle of Alamein and was then in retreat for 1500 miles or so. So hardly grounds for saying Rommel's tactics were better? @@wanderschlosser1857
@@wanderschlosser1857 "I also wouldn't say Montgomery kicked Rommel's ass"
In terms of casualties he certainly did, the Eighth army had less than 13,000 while Rommel had *73,000* .
"And that was in big part an American achievement"
The sky was ruled by Hurricanes and Spitfires. The artillery and troops on the ground were also lead by soldiers of the British Empire. A few Sherman tanks and grants doesn't suddenly make it an American achievement, It doesn't matter whose equipment it was. El Alamein was a British and Commonwealth victory.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- America kept the UK going. It's huge supplies of material to the UK and directly to Africa enabled the UK to build up the superior force in Egypt that actually stopped Rommel and pushed him back for good. And there weren't only a few Shermans or Grants. Of course it was the British Army that stopped Rommel but you Brits similar to the Russians like to forget that it was at the end the overwhelming mighty American industrial power that broke the Axis.
I do not think that Montgomery, Rommel and Weygand belongs to this list.
- Weygand has herited a lost battle. He came from North Africa and needed some days to understand the situation. In the second phase of the campaign he did the best what could be done.
- Rommel had some shortcommings but as well some genius. He was a high risk taker. In many cases it went well.
- Montgomery replaced Generals in North Africa that managed the campaign worse than he did. Market Garden was indeed a short comming.
MacArthur had the Australian Military under his command when he was Supreme Commander SW Pacific but due to his ego had a low opinion of them, even though the Aussies were doing the heavy lifting in PNG.
More American bullshit. Monty was one of if the greatest general of WW2 . Market garden was not his plan .And it was failed by the American general Gavin that helped lead to the defeat. Monty along with General Bill Slim was the best of the best
My father participated in Operation Market Garden. He was wounded, captured and imprisoned in Germany. He was no fan of Monty. 🙂🇨🇦
Did he expect the operation to be casualty free? What an optimist.
@@grahamhodge8313she is a fan of barbie girl 😂😂😂
your father was a smart and brave man.
market garden was a stupid high risk, high reward mission. It should have never happened. And the british played a more vital roll in liberating Holland. Not only that but lost WAY more men. Shut it dumb amerikunt
@@grahamhodge8313 That is an asinine response. Monty's plan was stupid, shortsighted, and relied on precision timing and absolute accuracy on how the Germans would respond. Ike was a fool not to have laughed Monty out of the room, especially as Monty's own subordinate generals thought the operation was insane.
Trust the americans to single out Monty.
Any list of "worst" generals of WWII which doesn't include "chicken Mark" Clark in Italy is a list unworthy of serious consideration.
I gotta go read up on Chicken Mark Clark. Never heard of ‘her’.
And what what General appointed MARK cLARK???
how about chicken cheese dick Bernard who didn't have the cajones to show up at Monty Garden. After yet another of his pathetic plans came apart immediately just like Caen,Sicily and Falaise.That the crown continually sweeps under the rug toprotect their delicate egos. Britian had good commanders that chortling chode wasn't one of them
@@chrishodge126 Whatever his shortcomming was he a very brave officer..
"As Mao had once said of MacArthur, arrogant, egotistical men were easy to defeat."
- page 587, Chapter 47 of Coldest Winter by David Halberstam
"Mao knew his military was far inferior to the Americans in tanks, artilleries and air power. But he had taken the measure of MacArthur and discerned a weakness.
In early November, Mao sent small cadres of troops to attack all along the approaching American front and then his men pulled back what looked like a full retreat.
"The Chinese hit hard and then they just disappeared. There was nothing out there anymore. MacArthur said full speed ahead again."
This became part of the strategy which is to lure the Americans further into North Korea, have them penetrate deeply and then ultimately surround them.
This was a certain shrewdness of Mao. He knows who he is dealing with.
He knows MacArthur is quite arrogant. This is the strategy that plays into that arrogance."
"Chosin Reservoir - Epic of Endurance | KOREAN WAR", 24m20s
No way you can say Montgommery was a "worst general" - he was in that position due to being proven to be good prior to Market Garden. Market Garden has been overanlysed to hell but if say the Germans hadn't had that [SS?] armour division regrouping there at just the wrong spot + the radios had worked better etc, it might've worked. And he had limited manpower by 1944 Britain has been in the war for 5 years and was maxed out, of course he was going to be cautious.
Oh and don't get me started on the crap about how he should have done more in Normandy, the strategy there was for the British troops to push into the Germans on the direct front at Caen etc while the US tropps wheeled round the open west flank, this is a standard strategy and what happened. Not saying the US weren't good brave guys btw, it's not a zero sum game :)
Clark I think is the one I think we can all openly dislike, who seemed to totally throw away tactics for an egotistic blow?
Ridiculous to label him as such. Had his flaws and bad decisions for sure but also was instrumental in turning the tide against Germany. left the video as soon as I saw it going there.
The first failed attempt of a D-Day was also Montgomery doing, that guy cost thousands of soldiers lives needlessly with his bad planning, so yes he deserves being on this list.
..and if the Brits hadn't IGNORED the intel from HUMINT, SIGNINT and IMINT that an entire SS PanzerKorps was refitting in the area...and if the arrogance to be the "first across the Rhine" hadn't been a factor in ignoring the intel there was, then yes you have a point
@@fenris6051 That was *Louis Mountbatten* who planned the Dieppe Raid, not Montgomery 🙄🤦♂
Do you mean Dieppe?
Grunge you either did not do any research or are repeating the mantra that has been around for 70 years.
1.According to the ORBAT you know Order of Battle of Market Garden The Commanding Officer for Market Garden was Eisenhower ,his C of S was Bedel -Smith the next mentioned is Browning and Brereton next is the Airforce C/O.
Montgomery is ONLY mentioned as the Commanding Officer of the 21st Army Group
MONTGOMERY HAD NO PART IN HOW THE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED/
The problem with the intelligence available to Field Marshall Montgomery and other planners for Operation Market-Garden was that much of it came from the Dutch Underground. The Dutch Underground had been compromised by the Germans months before Operation Market-Garden was being planned. And the Allies knew this. So most of that information coming out of Holland was heavily discounted by Allied planners. The basic message that the Allies would be dropping paratroopers on two SS panzer divisions "resting" in the Arnhem area came back to haunt the Allies during the operation. Needless to say, lightly-armed WWII paratroopers generally don't do well against even depleted tank units once the element of surprise has worn off.
Yeah we saw a lot of this in the series Band Of Brothers.
MARKET-GARDEN was a great plan but ha been lied about, including omitting one of the objectives and obscuring US treason
@@ladycplum Do not use Band of Brothers as the definitive happenings of DDay and beyond e.g That stupid scene where the Brit TANKEE IGNORED THE ADVICE OF THE us SOLDIER.Never happened
@@jacktattis I never said I did, I think I'm quite familiar with how Hollywood plays with the truth to make things more action-packed or emotional.
@@ladycplum Good
This presentation lacks any credibility, having omitted the worst offender of incompetence and hubris seen on the Allies team. Mark Clark. While I have no good words for Macurthur, Clark would be No 1 incompetent and Douggie would be fighting others off for a solid No 2 position.
The absence of Thomas Blamey indicates the US based producer’s grasp on the fact that the US was only one part of the Allied coalition.
Interesting that Percival or Bennett didn’t even rate a special mention.
Very shallow assessment, based on populist impressions, not researched facts.
A lack of American generals on the list.
Funny that
The list still have more of them than you do.
Fredendall and MacArthur were Americans, how could you miss this?
Douglass macarther wasn't all that well thought of by australian Troops in New Guinea. Being on the wrong side of 80yrs old I can still remember my father and uncles comments. After a couple of 100 Australian reservist held over 6000 Japanese regulars for 3 day at the Battle of Isuwava till the australian regulars could relive them and stopping the Advance on and capture of Port Morseby. He labelled them cowards for allowing Kokoda airport to fall to the japanese. He had no Idea what was going on at Kokoda or the Kokoda Track or the terrain of it. He labelled it trail because it sounded better to the American audiences.
Australian Feild marshall Sir Thomas blaney out ranked him, but macarthur was in charge. There is a record of a conversation between Macarthur and Blamey after disagreement. "If you were in my army I'de have you shot" blamey's response " If I was in your army I would have shot myself." It seems macarthur was excellent at leading from the rear.
If Biden had been a General, he would be on this list!!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
WTF are you talking about???
Are you actually saying Montgomery was one one of the worst generals of WW2?
Montgomery was one of the worst. He was a huge ego attached to a minimal brain. The Allies would have been much better served if the British had assigned him to guard a chicken coop in Cornwall and left him there for the duration of the war.
Yes, he was not able to take Caen, then did not think of seizing the port of Antwerp so valuable for supplies and finally launched the disastrous Arnhem offensive!
@@virgilius7036
It is best to read what I wrote. It is easier that way.
Field Marshal Montgomery was not one of the worst generals as described here -- this is American negative fixation and is always repeated. Generals can make mistakes - total nonsense that he was bad !!
I served in the British Army for 24 years and Montgomery was by far the best the Americans took over and made a mess of it.
Montgomery wouldn’t have been appointed Chief of the Imperial General Staff if he was a bad general
He could have been. At that level a lot of it is political.
I'm not saying good or bad about Monty. I'm saying your argument is wrong.
How to make a list about something you know nothing about....Grunge
You left out Mark Clark dis obeyed orders
Dugout Doug was completely worthless in the Pacific. He lost the Philippines thru his lack of preparation and insisted on retaking the islands to salve his own ego. He cost many lives. Then in Korea he decided that the JCS needed to be ignored, forcing Truman to relieve him of command before he went into mainland China.
Complete BS. Try doing some research.
@@AmericanInSwitzerland that's your opinion.
If he was so bad in WW2 why was he tapped for Korea?
@@garyrobinson3663 because they were stupid. Read up on the circumstances that led to the forced withdrawal from Chosin reservoir because of his ego and arrogance.
Typical American view …. Montgomery was a decent commander .
As for US generals, Mark Clark should be at the top of the list...most famously for the fiasco at Rapido River. He should have been held responsible for the massive loss of American lives in that battle; the only thing that saved him was that he was buddies with Ike.
Easy for us to judge from our comfortable chairs, with 80 years hindsight, and not subject to the fog of war, and confusion and limited information available to commanders. Even so, British General Arthur Percival performed poorly during the Japanese attack on Singapore. He did not marshal his resources properly and was completely outclassed by his charismatic and energetic opponent General Yamashita, despite Percival having 3 times the number of men. The decision to concede the landing areas on the North of the island (admittedly under intense pressure) and withdraw to the City in the South was fateful. Also, one of Percival's excuses for surrender - a water shortage - made no sense. Singapore has a tropical climate with rain on many afternoons. Yamashita's nickname amongst his own forces was The Tiger, whereas Percival's men referred to him as The Rabbit! British General William Slim would later provide a textbook example of how to fight and win against the Japanese Empire.
Had an uncle who served on a supply ship in the pacific. He and many he served with despised MacArthur. MacArthur was not only bad in the Philippines he made many similar errors in Korea. I know a retired 4 star general who thinks the world of MacArthur and honestly I don’t get it.
You didn't mention the egotist General Mark Clark
Totally crap post by grunge. This guy’s a general like Rosie O’Donnell is a pole vaulter.
What nonsense this guy talks!
MacArthur should have been dishonorably discharged due to the attack of the Philippines when he had been informed of the Pearl Harbor sneak attack yet he was unprepared for the air attack which destroyed most if the Far East Air Force!
Keen military historians and tacticians at work here 😂
It is obvious that the person or persons who complied this never served and has a superficial understanding of what they are talking about.
Oh YES they do! Many such lists have PROOF of bad Leadership by MacArthur The Scared. (Dugout Doug), known for staying WAY-Y-Y behind enemy lines.
Then when MacArthur got to Australia he socialised with the Melbourne social set while his troops sat leaderless in Queensland. It took a bunch of volunteer Aussie reserves to have the first Japanese defeat at Kokoda and MacArthur ignored them calling them "chocolate soldiers"
MacArthur's plan for Australia was the " Brisbane Line" letting the Japanese have the North of Australia.
Then they let him have a crack at Korea a few years later !
Yup but was thought of earlier as ahero and the Phillipinos liked him probably on his WWI rep.Nimitz should have been appointed overall commander in the Pacific much more tactically gifted and a team player.
Yes But for the Aussies Stopping the Japanese in PNG the Japanese would have Taken the Riches part of Australia . One of these days You Yanks may have the Good grace to admit that the Japanese were Stopped by a lot of Determined young Men some as young as 15 (Fact)
@johnmunns5964 Who? The whole war? They threw him a Party a Bon Voyage as he left for Tokyo? Where did he stash his 10,000 tons of gold? Finally his Aussie and Fillipina harum girls? See there's more!
MacArthur, his pride in full swing, demanded the Phillipines be liberated. The cost was 14, 000 US soldiers. The Philippine killings were between 500,000 and 1,000,000. It could have been radically lower if the military was allowed to follow its original island hopping offense.
What about the hostages in Santo Tomas? Or his vow to the Phillipine people? You might ask them how they liked being under Japanese rule? Suggest you read American Caesar.
@@michaelplunkett5124 Absolutely horrific.
Try doing some research… the choice was Formosa OR the Philippines, full stop. The goal was to cut Japan off from what remained of their Southeast Asia holdings. As Formosa had been held by Japan for more than 45 years it would have far more costly to capture and geographically was less of a “cork in the bottle” than the Philippines. MacArthur did not “make” the decision, the chiefs and the president did.
Good book@@michaelplunkett5124
No Mark Clark = instant dislike
as if he cares lmao.
I do not agree with most of your list. The British General in charge of the Defense of Singapore, General Percival was an incompetent. He surrendered a far superior force to an audacoious Japanese General commanding a much smaller force who predictably attacked him from the landward side of the island. Stalin was a terrible general to start the war, first of all he didn't believe his spies in Berlin who told of the German Operation Barbarossa attack and the date and prior to WWII Stalin had many of his officer corp shot in 1938 leaving inexperienced generals to face the Germans when they invaded in June 1941. I believe three Russian/Soviet Army Groups surrendered to fast blitzkreig tactics with an average of between 500,000 to 650,000 troop per Army Group lost in 1941 alone, or up to 1,600.000 million men plus equipment. Someone below mentions U.S. Gen. Mark Clark and his timidity which cost lives and slow progress. Montgomery was slow but on the whole methodical and won in the Desert in 1942 at the same time that Stalingrad was being decided. Patton was great. I was surprised MacArthur was allowed to continue in Command after his defeat. And lastly, Hitler was the absolute worse General, he committed the worst crimes of humanity (genocide) that he had to keep hidden to save his own neck, when he should have been reconsidering his plight and the plight of Germany.
This video was a really good laugh. I was honestly expecting you to say all the polish generals was bad because they couldn't fight the Germans and the Soviets at the same time.
Feel like about 5 to 10 mintues went into quickly researching stuff just to make this list.
That long; really?
Mark Clark is my first choice. MacArthur is my second for the Bonus march. He should never have made it to WW2.
Eisenhower served as an aide to MacArthur in the 1930s. He later said something to the effect that the one thing he learned during that time was the art of self-promotion.
This is completely unbalanced. Montgomery won the battle of Alamein in 1942, which was a turning point in the North Africa campaign, and in the war. Yes, Arnhem was 'A Bridge Too Far', and an over ambitious failure, but the bridges over the Rhine were strategically really important to the Allied advance into Germany, and the alternative was that the Germans would just destroy them as they retreated. So Arnhem was a calculated risk that didn't come off.
I would submit that Alamein, significant as it was (The end of the beginning), was only possible thanks to the overwhelming material superiority that Montgomery had achieved over Rommel's forces. And after such a victory, he should have been able to catch the German forces before they reached Tunisia....
Montgomery would have escaped like a little girl If %100 of the german troops,fighting on the eastern front,had been in north africa
@@michaelram3411 They would have starved long before getting to Monty, can't supply 3 million soldiers in a theatre like North Africa, it was hard enough as it was doing it on the Eastern front.
Monty was NEVER again as successful he was at Alamein, so I suspect he stole the plan.
No Mark Clark?
Monty was a great general far greater than Americans like McAthur and the arrogant P....
The best general was Viscount Sir William Slim.
Did bernard give you the Full Monty also - propped up fraud was anuppity nothing that didn't cross the ENGLISH Channel in 4 full years - ya field marshall.
You're certainly not a military historian. Churchill was known for firing generals, yet Monte finished the war. Rommel lasted a lot longer than he should have given the circumstances he faced. And let us not forget his tactics were used to overrun Iraqi forces during Desert Storm. Finally, MacArthur, thousands of miles behind enemy lines due to a sneak attack and hopelessly outnumbered. He had no choice but to leave the Philippines or be captured and exploited by the Japanese. His "hit them where they ain't", strategy shorted the war by years and saved countless lives. The island-hopping campaign came directly from his strategy. Don't quit your day job Gomer.
Well said
As much as I love Churchill Monty was a mess and there because of moral Think man think Churchill had his reasons
@@labla8940 I'm certainly not second-guessing Churchill. There were valid reasons for each of the firings, but he did fire generals who were probably better than Monte.
Fully agree mate!
Your assessment is correct
Mark Clarke must be up there.
You are spot on about McArthur. He cost many US servicemen's lives.
Ya, but he gets too much blame, probably for his arrogance. Baatan was horrible but he was the general that the Japanese were after. Once he got to Australia, he organized the Coalition's pacific ww2 strategy....The entire thing. That's him. You can point to Einsenhower's folly of WW2, General Eisenhower's methodical, broad‐front advance not only delayed victory but also enabled the Soviet Union, whose troops at the end of 1944 had not reached the borders of Ger many, to finish the war in May, 1945, as the master of Berlin and central Germany.
Even worse: He cost a lot of Australian lives - then refused to acknowledge their part in the fighting! A real POS.
@@CliSweYes definitely an arrogant, Obnoxious POS.
As an Australian, I naturally don't like Macarthur. He didn't make full use of our forces and their experience.
The original Kardashian.
Quite right. MacArthur was a blundering idiot in the way he handled the New Guinea campaign. Australia suffered thousands of casualties, all unnecessary, as a result of Little Mac stuffing it up as the glory hound he was.
My Dad said among soldiers he met - and he had about twelve postings - Mc Arthur had the worst reputation for being an egotist with few concerns for the average soldier.
@@Snoopdad-zw4mz You father met Macarthur?
@@andrewnewton2246 My Father never met McArthur but the informal scuttlebutt about most servicemen's negative views of him quickly spread through the American forces. Something you Aussies might call "Bush Telegraph". McArthur was the stereotypical martinet with insufficient care for the average GI.
General Short and Admiral Kimmel (army and navy commanders in Hawaii, respectively) didn't know the Japanese were coming but both were sacked. MacArthur said in his memoir that, upon being told the Japanese struck Hawaii, he was certain they had suffered a great defeat. Then, instead of launching an attack on Japanese bases in Formosa with his B-17's, he let his air force get destroyed on the ground. He was awarded the Medal of Honor. It pays to know people! He didn't get any better in Korea where he ignored multiple credible reports that the Chinese were about to intervene. When they did, UN forces were forced to fall back with heavy casualties. President Truman didn't relieve him soon enough.
Hoover should have relieved him after the bonus marchers fiasco.
The way the bonus marchers were treated is a national disgrace.@@brucenorman8904
Good point!@@brucenorman8904
MacArthur was intensely disliked by all the WWII USMC Generals. They called him "Pretty Boy."
MacArthur had no appreciation for the conditions allied troops endured during the Nee Guinea campaign. He simply demanded results and led from the rear.
"Dug-out Doug."
MacArthur was a 'public relations expert' with a staff for that. He disobeyed orders often and was setting himself up for political office. (just one reason Truman canned him, for example when he met with Truman in Hawaii, MacArthur had his plane circle and not land until Truman was there so it appeared Truman was greeting MacArthur rather than the other way round. His political push to have the US retake the Philippines was unnecessary and caused much distruction and death to the people of the Philippines.)
'Pretty boy', don't forget 'Dugout Doug'.
@@pamelacareysaltmer6644 : Demanding results was exactly what was required at the time. The Australian army top brass thought the Jap troops sent to New Guinea were crack troops that could not be opposed. They were going to let the Japs have the northern half of the mainland. Macarthur said, "you lazy idiots, get up in New Guinea and fight. Stop them there, not in your own mainland." So they did, and it turned out the Japs were not crack troops at all. Even though they outnumbered Australians 4:1, the Australians, made to have go by Macarthur, won.
Disclaimer: my father was one of those Australian troops sent to New Guinea on Macarthur's orders. My father had a very brief gun fight one day with a Jap soldier. I'm here because my father was taught to shoot straight and the Japs were not. They were trained to make blood curdling screams. The poor Jap lost his life.
Let's not forget the Bonus Army of 1932. MacArthur was a real piece of work.
I view Monty as mediocre, but calling him one of the worst is silly. Beyond silly is including Rommel. Stopped watching at that point because this was obviously put together by an ignorant child.
Monty was overrated, and Rommel, if well supplied, would have cleaned the dude's clock in Libya. next... Oh boy-oh-boy. Had Rommel won the desert he'd next have rolled the Brits north and secured the Ploesti oil fields. The fields are about 300 miles from Istanbul, once entering Turkey he'd have added the weight of their supplies and forty-three divisions of their troops to his force. The desert in 1941 was the most critical of all the battlefields in that year. You producers have the strategic understand of a cucumber.
@jessgatt5441 Just remember... in direct engagements between the two, Monty is 2-0 against Rommel. He won at El Alamein and broke the Africa Korps and he defeated Rommel again in Normandy.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Only because Rommel lacked supplies and fuel in No Africa. In Normandy, Rommel had no tanks to confront the overly cautious Montgomery. Had the odds been equal, Rommel would have crushed Montgomery who lacked the daring of Rommel.
@@tomchirillo1663 The odds were equal at Alam Halfa Rommel had six divisions, Monty had four and Rommel still lost.
@@tomchirillo1663 Rommel would have never beat Montgomery, Monty unlike others didn't fall for any of rommels predictable feigned retreat tactics. Monty fought Rommel on his terms, he was a general who never danced to his opponents tune.
McArthur was eventually fired, wasn’t he?!!
Yeah during the Korean War. I believe he wanted to take the entirety of North Korea.
@@That_1_CollectorHe wanted to use nuclear weapons and pushed President Truman too hard, so he was sacked.
No friend of Australians. Belittled us in PNG. Caused many unnecessary Australian and US casualties just so he could big note himself. Always grateful to the US just not so much Douglas, his stupid hat and corn pipe. 🇦🇺👍🍺
@@That_1_Collector Yeah, it’s said he was saying derogatory things against the administration at that time.
aaah..,. actually..... there was a personality conflict between President Truman and General MacArthur. General MacArthur thought he was General of the Armies. President Truman thought he was Commander and Chief of the Armies and smarter than his military generals! in the fall of the year things were going well and Truman asked MacArthur when the conflict would end. MacArthur said the whole thing should be wrapped up before the start of the new year. Truman ordered Thanksgiving Dinner for all the allied troops. the Chinese Communist Army united with the North Korean Army and ROUTED the allies in a massive sneak attack!! MacArthur demanded of the President, atomic weapons, stating, "In a war, there is no Yellow River (the boundary between Korea and Communist China that the allies were not permitted to cross)." President Truman did not give the weapons, but instead, fired General MacArthur.
Multiple factors led to the failure of Market Gaerden. The most significant failure was General Gavin's failure to assault and Capture his main objective, Nejmegen Bridge, in so allowing German Armour to take up defensive positions, the largest single factor in causing the delay of 30 Corps. Having talked afterwards of the delay of 30 Corps advancing from Nejmegen and NOT that he caused the delay because 30 Corps hadn't had a bridge to cross. He was the cautious General, NOT Montgomery.
Field Marshal Rommel being on this list make it THE Biggest joke
Macarthur An ego far too big ~ was all but a disaster in the South pacific ~
He ruined the careers of many GREAT Australian generals and senior officers that were FAR FAR more battle hardened than he ever was !
He refused to take advice on battle scenarios ~ was adamant that the Australians faced little more than 300 Japanese in the Lae campaign! When in fct the Australians and limited US numbers faced in fact more than TWO DIVISIONS ~
( The Australians defeated the japanese in one battle alone some 600 japanese casualties !)~
It was said by some US high ranks that the combined Lae campaign was bigger and consumed more numbers and logistics than the Guadalcanal campaign ~
The campaign was almost a disaster for the allies purely because he refused to take advice and wanted the issue to simply go away, the Huon Peninsula was a distraction ~ More to the point ~ All ~ So he could do his "Cavalry charge to the Philippines"!
Only high level admin pressure caused him to relent and make use ofthe resources he was hoarding for his Philippines campaign.
The man was a great strategists BUT had NO concept of men and logistics on the ground.
Macarthur even claimed that the Kokoda campaign was a total failure on the part of the Australians and the Australians merely fell back to the south coast through incompetence ~
In fact the Australians were outnumbered three to one ~ The Australian strategy was to fight a retreating campaign knowing the Japanese would fail through failure of logistics which is exactly what happened ~
Arthur Percival didn't tell his reinforcements he was planning to surrender,. so they were landed and walked straight into captivity without a shot being fired.
Oh no, I can smell the Hollywood armchair generals coming out of their basements.🤮
Don't be cowards! Let ME hide behind that tree, boys!
Um not sure why Rommel is in this list.
Rommel has an inflated reputation but still he was pretty good.
If you have to pick a general from the north African theatre surely Gratzianni would be better. 130,000 v 25,000 and he lost an entire country...
Agreed, and not sure why Mark Clark is NOT on the list.
You include Montgomery and yet don't include Markus Clarus John Lucas or Arthur Percival. Name me another disaster that Monty was responsible for ? I take it your knowledge of military begins and ends with Hollywood movies ?
Here we go again.
Montgomery did NOT PLAN 'Market Garden'. The original plan 'Comet' WAS Montgomery's, this plan was aborted. The 82nd and 101st American Divisions were then added to the forces at which point the Commander of the 1st Airborne Army then took over the plan, this General was Brereton. It was the changes which Brereton made to the 'Comet' concept which led to the disaster.
The changes included:
1. Daylight para. drops instead of the night glider drops which M had planned.
2. Drop zones moved away from the bridges - this allowed the Germans to blow the Son bridge before the 101st arrived, it also had a disastrous effect at Arnhem
3. Drops spread over three days. Any element of surprise was lost.
Further it was Gavin's (82nd) mistake to not capture the Nijmagen bridge, it was not captured until the XXX Corps arrived (post war Gavin admitted this mistake)
Even the ridiculous film 'A Bridge too Far' stated the bridges were to be captured with 'thunderclap surprise'.
Yes this is the real story of Market-Garden, It was Eisenhower that insisted it go ahead despite the risks.
The Germans learned more than one lesson from WWI, and one of those lessons was not to get tied up in the "low countries".
@@isaaccowan5316 When the Germans fled East after their defeat in Normandy they had few resources to defend Belgium and southern Holland "low counries'. It wasn't a tactic learned from WW1 it was because they had been routed. Saved only by Eisenhower's idiotic "Broad Front" strategy, which allowed them to regroup near the German border.
I Read the Book . A better ' Source ' than a Movie . Good Book
@@waynesmith9408 Yes some still go along with the Hollywood version of history were the American Generals were the comic book super hero's lol
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that McArthur is a POS.
There was an entire army hospital in Fort Sill Oklahoma where the main topic of conversation was how and in what way they would do away with MacArthur.
How about Patton doing his own thing and searching for personal glory, no matter what it cost or how his irresponsible actions impacted the ability of other commanders.
Patton was right up there with the worst.
Except he never lost a battle, so how can he be considered the worse? His only "loss" of the war was when he sent an outrageously small platoon, with no support, to liberate a POW camp his son-in-law was at. Now that was Marx Bros. level stupidity on Patton's part. Other than that, he was the most winningest general of WWII among the western allies. I believe Zhukov was the most winning general of the entire war.
@@tedwojtasik8781
"Except he never lost a battle"
He did lose a Battle at *Fort Driant* during the Siege of Metz on 27 Sept 1944 - 13 Oct 1944.
@@tedwojtasik8781 Patton was stopped dead at Metz and was forced to sit on his backside for 3 whole months while he assembled an overwheming number of men and tanks because he needed that to beat the Germans. It took Patton twice as long to capture Metz as it took Monty to capture Caen and that makes Monty twice as fast as patton.
@@tedwojtasik8781I wouldn’t call Patton the worst, but he certainly wasn’t a good general. In Operation Torch, he completely ignored the planning of loading his landing craft and ships, so that certain critical materiel was missing while he had some useless junk on hand. Rookie mistake to ignore your logistics.
So there was no excuse when he did the exact same thing during Operation Husky. He was all about rushing headlong into battle and didn’t want to think about supplies or equipment, roads or transportation.
A general doesn’t have to do this organization himself, but he absolutely does have to ensure that it is done, and Patton simply did not care… subsequently many lives were lost unnecessarily.
Whoever made this video is wildly uninformed. Just take this down.
In defense of Gamelin, I must say that after two weeks of hiking across the Ardennes, it is hard to believe anyone could launch a motorized offensive through those heavily wooded, steep valleys.
I don’t remember exactly, but i believe the French generals under the command of Gamelin/Weygand had quite the freedom to prepare their own defences. Charles Huntziger is more to blame as he neglected the proper preparations needed to defend against the Germans coming through the Ardennes, a strategy Huntziger refused to believe could happen.
@Gearparadummies@ Very interesting and exotic kind of "logic" you presented here.
Hard to believe my wife is cheating me so she certainly is allright.
The Ardennes is much more heavily forested now than it was in 1940. Today, it is literally impossible to move an army through there. Back then, it was incredibly risky, but feasible.
@@albertopiergiorgi5980 It's called "I have been in the place" and "I know how a tank works", so yes, there's some logic in my words. The Ardennes are pretty much impassable for 1940s armored vehicles. That's an educated observation.
Try offering a counterpoint instead of behaving like an emo teenager to get a cheap laugh from the rest of the class.
These sort of videos are gross simplifications and putting the blame on commanders such as the French pair does not take into account other factors. I would mention the absence of a French standing army as the left wing politicians thought it would be used to repress freedom, so practically the whole army where short duration reservists who were not very good at mechanised warfare. Also it is not unusual for generals to think the next war will be like the last. Oh, and the German plan was actually quite good.
Market Garden achieved most of its objectives. Can't really call it a failure. Then the forces charged with linking up the airborne landings stopped for the nights instead of pushing on in what was a time sensitive operation. Add that Montgomery had wanted the commanding officer of said unit removed before the operation, so it's not correct to blame Montgomery for the advances slow progress