In All U.S. Military History, These Are the 5 Worst Generals

[PeteS in CA]

Just a reminder, please discuss the topic rather than each other.

[Free Vulcan]

What? No Custer?

[sneakypete]

What? No Custer?

@Free Vulcan

Custer may have been a bonehead,but at least he rode to battle at the head of his troops.

[thackney]

What? No Custer?

Custer was only a brevet [honorary] general. 

[Bigun]

Not one mention of Gen. Jubilation T Cornpone.

Harumph!

Missed  William Tecumseh Sherman as well.

[Bigun]

--------------------------
Up front, I am a MacArthur fan.
Further you're entitled to your opinion, yet it's utter nonsense I completely reject.
MacArthur's actions in Korea demonstrate a military visionary; a trait separating
time-servers, such as our current Pentagon flunkies, from the greats of history.
Unlike haberdasherer Truman, Mac Arthur grasped that Mao's intent was to replace
Japan as the Pacific Rim/Asia power, threatening the USA, Australia and Latin America.
That was the catalyst behind his decisions at the Yalu; to force China's hand.
China had manpower to waste, which it freely did, but neither Naval strength nor
most critically, Air strength. As such, he intended to obliterate their military from
the air, closing their ports and imposing a harsh peace undermining Communism.
But this was too tuff for weenie Harry whose reaction was to urinate in his pants,
after hearing the plan, resulting in MacArthur's dismissal.
The record of history shows that this was an opportunity missed that would have
changed the dynamics of Asia up to the present moment!!!!!

And so was George S. Patton right as rain about the Soviets.

Political correctness was not his or MacAuthur 's strong suit but that does not change the fact that they were 100% correct. 

There is much blood on the hands of the Commie bastards within the United States Department of State and it continues to this very day.

[Bigun]

General Ambrose Burnside  -  Responsible for massive slaughters at Antietam and Petersburg.

Yeah!  It's funny how they seem to miss ALL of Lincoln's political patronage, and outright Communist, generals when compiling such lists.

It's also troubling how many folks there are who think their public school history is serving them well.

[MajorClay]

Mark Clark, needlessly slaughtered hundreds of men in the battle of the Rapido River in Italy in WW2.

[sneakypete]

Yeah!  It's funny how they seem to miss ALL of Lincoln's political patronage, and outright Communist, generals when compiling such lists.

It's also troubling how many folks there are who think their public school history is serving them well.

@Bigun

Well,it is ALWAYS the winners that write the history of the wars. It's just human nature AND political good-sense to justify the recent slaughter and political re-alignment.

The history books would have you believe the Civil War was fought over slavery,and nothing could be further from the truth. The politicians and the press in the north just picked slavery because it was a moral issue that hid the FACT that individual states AND whole regions of America were free to succeed from a VOLUNTARY Union any time they wanted.  The TRUTH is the north enslaved the south and used the war as a excuse to seize huge farms and businesses for unpaid back taxes and sell them to yankee investors for pennies. Sometimes the sales were complete and the property had already changed hands before the southern soldier was released from a POW camp and could get back home. The sales,of course,were conducted by yankee carpetbaggers with political connections who were APPOINTED by the north to be sheriffs and judges,and the sales held with no real public notification. In some cases the sheriff and his deputies appeared unannounced at farm houses to force the wife and children out at gunpoint,and put them on the road as homeless so the new owner could take possession.

And the current generation knows nothing about this,and wouldn't believe you if you told them. Hell,they still think all German soldiers were Nazi's,and that all Soviet troops were "true believers ready to give up their lives for the cause of global liberation!" Nobody told them about the NKVD "blocking squads" that followed behind the assault troops armed with machine guns to mow down any Soviet soldiers that stopped advancing or started retreating.

I guess it is probably true that most US and British soldiers agreed with the cause of the war and were willing participants because it was possible to avoid serving if you really didn't want to go,and not end up in a labor camp or in front of a firing squad. That does NOT mean the Brits and the Americans were NOT lied to by their governments to make it seem like they were as pure as the driven snow,and the enemy  were the spawn of Satan,though. True,both Communism and their first-cousins the Nazi's were and are evil at their core,but you would have a hard time talking the average citizen into putting on a uniform and going to war against them based on that alone. Even the propaganda of the Soviet and Nazi citizens was only believed by the weak-minded. Everybody else just played along  with it because the monsters were in charge,and they wanted to live.

Here it is now,75 years after WW-2,and the Communists and the Nazi's have once more combined forces and are once again trying to take over the world. This time they are doing it using corporate money and the existing political systems already in place.

And sadly,having MUCH  better luck thanks to a dumbed-down population. It was a wise move that Stalin made when he decided to start destroying America by taking over our school systems and teaching propaganda instead of fact and no longer requiring students to think.

[sneakypete]

Mark Clark, needlessly slaughtered hundreds of men in the battle of the Rapido River in Italy in WW2.

@MajorClay

I have forgotten what little I knew about that,but isn't it POSSIBLE that disaster was due more to green troops AND leaders going up against an experienced army defending their home ground?

[bigheadfred]

Out of  this shit. All of it.

Respect to those who gave their lives. And, just as importantly, maybe more, are the ones who came home. So like that is debatable.

Maybe I read too much. Maybe I don't read enough. And maybe I've seen enough.

Here is my point. ALL war is murder. Notice that I didn't call it self defense.

In all of recorded history.

@Absalom

Think about it.

[Hoodat]

@MajorClay

I have forgotten what little I knew about that,but isn't it POSSIBLE that disaster was due more to green troops AND leaders going up against an experienced army defending their home ground?

The whole purpose of the Anzio landings was to trap the German Tenth Army defending Monte Cassino.  The Rapido (Geri) River Crossing was intended to draw German forces away from the Anzio beachhead.  In both of these objectives, Mark Clark failed totally.  He lacked initiative in getting armor across the Rapido river, with an entire regiment suffering heavy casualties in retreat.  At Anzio, Clark failed to advance after the initial landings, which allowed his forces to easily be penned in on marsh land that was easily flooded.

On the other side, the German theater commander was General Albert Kesselring who always did an outstanding job with what he had.  In hindsight, the advance into Italy should have been abandoned at Monte Cassino.  The Italian government had already surrendered.  And the Allies certainly weren't going to march northward through Italy, cross the Alps, and take Munich and Berlin.  From the onset of the war, Hitler remarked that he was better off with a neutral Italy than an Italy he had to defend.

Even though more troops died at Rapido than at Omaha Beach on D-Day, I would still rank General Lloyd Fredendall below Mark Clark.

[PeteS in CA]

The whole purpose of the Anzio landings was to trap the German Tenth Army defending Monte Cassino.  The Rapido (Geri) River Crossing was intended to draw German forces away from the Anzio beachhead.  In both of these objectives, Mark Clark failed totally.  He lacked initiative in getting armor across the Rapido river, with an entire regiment suffering heavy casualties in retreat.  At Anzio, Clark failed to advance after the initial landings, which allowed his forces to easily be penned in on marsh land that was easily flooded.

On the other side, the German theater commander was General Albert Kesselring who always did an outstanding job with what he had.  In hindsight, the advance into Italy should have been abandoned at Monte Cassino.  The Italian government had already surrendered.  And the Allies certainly weren't going to march northward through Italy, cross the Alps, and take Munich and Berlin.  From the onset of the war, Hitler remarked that he was better off with a neutral Italy than an Italy he had to defend.

Even though more troops died at Rapido than at Omaha Beach on D-Day, I would still rank General Lloyd Fredendall below Mark Clark.

I haven't read a lot about the Italian front, but Clark seems to have failed to be as aggressive as was needed, even though he had the necessary forces. Kesselring was a Luftwaffe general, but prior to 1933 had served in the army in WW1 and between the wars.

[sneakypete]

The whole purpose of the Anzio landings was to trap the German Tenth Army defending Monte Cassino.   

@Hoodat

You just brought back a memory of a now deceased friend. Senior SF NCO in the 60's. We were talking once about Army field manuals,and damned if he didn't mention an army field manual for how to tie down cases of mortar ammo and other items on mules. IF I remember correctly,he said he learned about that manual when he was part of a detail tasked with leading loaded pack mules up Monte Cassino in WW-2,or somewhere related. It was a old-fart discussion group,and I was both surprised and amused at someone else chipping in about pack mules in the Philippine Island during WW-2. All those good men are gone now,and I miss their company.

Another friend was from Georgia,and he was a 16 year old Ranger climbing the cliffs at Normandy on D-Day. He retired years ago as a CSM,and passed not long after.

I am genuinely grateful and feel honored to have known,served with,and been friends with those people. I wouldn't trade that for all the wealth and power positions in the world. Seems like I haven't met anybody "real" since I got out of the army.

[bigheadfred]

Is this one of these things where daisy may be goes to daisy did?

[jpsb]

Re MacArthur; The General was a brilliant commander. A General in ww1, a 5star general in ww2 and a Field Marshall in Korea. He was the most decorated American soldier in ww1. The only field grade officer (or above) he ever met on the battle field in France was LtC George Patton (another great commander). Unlike most high ranking officers he choose to lead from the front and not from the safety of the rear. In ww1 he was ordered "take that hill or turn in a 100% causality report including you". He gave similar orders to the great generals that served under him in ww2. He trained Eisenhower. Ike served under him in the Philippines before ww2. MacArthur had an eye for talent and recruited excellent officers into his command. Omar Bradley would not have made the cut, Patton would and it would have been fun to watch the drama of those two giant egos serving together.

The US has no plan to defend the Philippines, the US Navy's plan was to fire up their boilers and get back to Hawaii as fast as they could. Everyone knew the Japanese would take the Philippines. MacArthur choice to fight on the beach rather then execute the planned retreat to Bataan. But their was nothing he could do to stop the Japanese. He was brilliant during the rest of the war after losing on the beach.

Not many people know this but during Korean War, the idiot Truman, sent the 7th fleet to patrol the Taiwan straight. Why? To insure that the Nationalist Chinese did not invade China. China had a very large force stationed there to repel any invasion from Taiwan. Guess where all those troops went? Yup Korea, if you want to blame someone for China's entry into the Korean war blame the idiot Truman.

MacArthur did an excellent Job of civilizing the Japanese during his occupation of Japan.

The General had his faults but generalship was not one of them. The author is a f'ing idiot. The left does not like MacArthur because he was known as "the republican general".

Well this is an exception do my self impose do not post rule. Bye for now.

[bigheadfred]

Re MacArthur; The General was a brilliant commander. A General in ww1, a 5star general in ww2 and a Field Marshall in Korea. He was the most decorated American soldier in ww1. The only field grade officer (or above) he ever met on the battle field in France was LtC George Patton (another great commander). Unlike most high ranking officers he choose to lead from the front and not from the safety of the rear. In ww1 he was ordered "take that hill or turn in a 100% causality report including you". He gave similar orders to the great generals that served under him in ww2. He trained Eisenhower. Ike served under him in the Philippines before ww2. MacArthur had an eye for talent and recruited excellent officers into his command. Omar Bradley would not have made the cut, Patton would and it would have been fun to watch the drama of those two giant egos serving together.

The US has no plan to defend the Philippines, the US Navy's plan was to fire up their boilers and get back to Hawaii as fast as they could. Everyone knew the Japanese would take the Philippines. MacArthur choice to fight on the beach rather then execute the planned retreat to Bataan. But their was nothing he could do to stop the Japanese. He was brilliant during the rest of the war after losing on the beach.

Not many people know this but during Korean War, the idiot Truman, send the 7th fleet to patrol the Taiwan straight. Why to insure that the Nationalist Chinese did not invade China. China had a very large force stationed there to repel any invasion from Taiwan. Guess where all those troops went? Yup Korea, if you want to blame someone for China's entry into the Korean war blame the idiot Truman.

MacArthur did an excellent Job of civilizing the Japanese during his occupation of Japan.

The General had his faults but generalship was not one of them. The author is a f'ing idiot. The left does not like MacArthur because he was know as "the republican general".

Well this is an exception do my self impose do not post rule. Bye for now.

I find no fault with Macarthur.   

IMO, war is murder, and war is hell.

This article is merely one person selecting.

Generals are usually human beings.

Who takes orders.

[sneakypete]

MacArthur did an excellent Job of civilizing the Japanese during his occupation of Japan.

 

@jpsb

I sure can't argue with you about that part of your post.

I will state that medals don't count if you write yourself up for them,and have a family friend approve them,and it is an established FACT that he wrote himself up for at least one of the Moh that he received,and wrote himself up for another one for the defense of the Philippines that was denied.

It is also no secret that his soldiers referred to him as "Dugout Dug" during the siege of the island he had fortified.

There was no bigger fan of McArthur anywhere in the known universe than McArthur himself.

[Absalom]

Out of  this shit. All of it.
Respect to those who gave their lives. And, just as importantly, maybe more, are the ones who came home. So like that is debatable.
Maybe I read too much. Maybe I don't read enough. And maybe I've seen enough.
Here is my point. ALL war is murder. Notice that I didn't call it self defense.
In all of recorded history.
@Absalom
Think about it.

--------------------------------
Bigheadfred,
certainly you're not wrong as 'good' wars' exist in comic books and the minds of toddlers.
Yet permit another perspective which I am suggesting yet cannot affirm nor will I belabor.
The Natural Law, reinforced by the great religions, prominently Judaism, defended the concept
of 'Just War' w/the provisos that:
* it was a last resort after all peaceful options had been exhausted,
* it was waged by a legitimate governing authority,
* it was fought as a self-defense mechanism to right an egregious wrong or attack.
In Man's earliest days the Just War did occur from time to time, but over the passage
of centuries it has evaporated as a justification for war. Yet why so?
Early Man was a composite of many attitudes and behaviors supported by a strong
spiritual sensibility exemplified in the Art he created.
Sadly that sensibility has eroded over time w/the great break coming from the
French Enlightenment which rejected both Monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church.
Those Radicals were the spawn of our modern leftist politics; their mantra being that the
'betterment of Man's existence on this Earth was more noble than any spiritual sensibility'.
The consequences of this was to usher in materialism as the higher calling and the world
is hardly better off for the sea change in impulse and temperament.
In sum, war in our time is fought to get "more stuff'; as well as ideological control!!!

[jpsb]

@jpsb

I will state that medals don't count if you write yourself up for them,and have a family friend approve them,and it is an established FACT that he wrote himself up for at least one of the Moh that he received,and wrote himself up for another one for the defense of the Philippines that was denied.

@sneakypete


Well your going to have to provide some proof that he wrote himself up and had a family friend approve.

Gen Pershing did not like MacArthur, something about both wanting the same girl, so Pershing would have busted MacArthur if he was writing himself up. Oh did you know he was 1st in his class at West Point?

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

Well your going to have to provide some proof that he wrote himself up and had a family friend approve.

@No,I am not because a: I dont' give a damn if you believe me or not,and b: I don't work for you.

Gen Pershing did not like MacArthur, something about both wanting the same girl, so Pershing would have busted MacArthur if he was writing himself up.

Yeah,despite the fact that McArthur's father was also a general,and senior to Pershing? BTW,McArthur may have put himself in for two MOH's during WW-1,but he got two DSC's,instead. Which broke his heart because being the mama's boy he was,he SO much wanted to be like his daddy and have a MoH.

Oh did you know he was 1st in his class at West Point?

There can be no doubt at all about him being brilliant and hard-working. There can also be no doubt about him being his biggest fan,next to his mother,that is.

Why do YOU think the troops that served under him in the Philippines referred to him as "Dugout Doug"? I knew one of them when I was much younger,and heard the stories. Mention the name to him,and he would get so mad he would shake and stutter.

[Absalom]

@sneakypete
Well your going to have to provide some proof that he wrote himself up and had a family friend approve.
Gen Pershing did not like MacArthur, something about both wanting the same girl, so Pershing would have busted MacArthur if he was writing himself up. Oh did you know he was 1st in his class at West Point?

----------------------------
jpsb, on the mark.
Additionally, at Sandurst / Britain's West Point, MacArthur's Pacific Island Hopping
Strategy is the template used to instruct their officers in a way to defeat an
enemy that is spread far and wide while minimizing casualties and relatively quickly.
Consider this; the Pacific Ocean covers 63.8 million sq. miles while the entirety of
No. America is 9.5 million sq. miles; the former 7x the size of the latter!!!

[sneakypete]

----------------------------
jpsb, on the mark.
Additionally, at Sandurst / Britain's West Point, MacArthur's Pacific Island Hopping
Strategy is the template used to instruct their officers in a rapid way to defeat an
enemy that is spread far and wide while minimizing casualties and relatively quickly.
Consider this; the Pacific Ocean covers 63.8 million sq. miles while the entirety of
No. America is 9.5 million sq. miles; the former 7x the size of the latter!!!

@Absalom

I never said or even hinted that he is stupid. He wasn't. If anything,he was a genius.

What has NOTHING to do with him being a narcissistic ego-maniac that put himself in for medals and never once hesitated for an instant to blame one of his subordinates for any mistakes McArthur himself may have made.

The man had NO honor.

[berdie]

The whole purpose of the Anzio landings was to trap the German Tenth Army defending Monte Cassino.  The Rapido (Geri) River Crossing was intended to draw German forces away from the Anzio beachhead.  In both of these objectives, Mark Clark failed totally.  He lacked initiative in getting armor across the Rapido river, with an entire regiment suffering heavy casualties in retreat.  At Anzio, Clark failed to advance after the initial landings, which allowed his forces to easily be penned in on marsh land that was easily flooded.

On the other side, the German theater commander was General Albert Kesselring who always did an outstanding job with what he had.  In hindsight, the advance into Italy should have been abandoned at Monte Cassino.  The Italian government had already surrendered.  And the Allies certainly weren't going to march northward through Italy, cross the Alps, and take Munich and Berlin.  From the onset of the war, Hitler remarked that he was better off with a neutral Italy than an Italy he had to defend.

Even though more troops died at Rapido than at Omaha Beach on D-Day, I would still rank General Lloyd Fredendall below Mark Clark.

I thought this post was very interesting @Hoodat . My uncle died at Anzio and I've never thought about researching it. But I will. All I ever knew was that he died there. My other uncles were fighting in the Pacific..so even if they were alive they probably would not know the circumstances of his death.

I have looked him up in the past but since he had a very common name I really can't find much.  The only thing I know is that it broke my grandmother's heart and she never recovered completely. He did take some kind of "pay out" the army offered that supported her all of her life.

[Smokin Joe]

I thought this post was very interesting @Hoodat . My uncle died at Anzio and I've never thought about researching it. But I will. All I ever knew was that he died there. My other uncles were fighting in the Pacific..so even if they were alive they probably would not know the circumstances of his death.

I have looked him up in the past but since he had a very common name I really can't find much.  The only thing I know is that it broke my grandmother's heart and she never recovered completely. He did take some kind of "pay out" the army offered that supported her all of her life.

Berdie, it there is a photo of him in uniform, unit patches may help you find out more about what unit he was in, and there are records which may be available on line.