Worst of the Generals

[Marrow Man]

I voted McClellan (sorry Amber!).

I saw a documentary once that said his greatest flaw was he did not have the heart to send his men into situations where he knew many of them would die. That makes him a good human being but a terrible general.

 

[Montanablue]

Just to clarify, I said that I "would become" angry, not that I already was.

 

[TimV]

Good! Remember I didn't give my own personal opinion on the question.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Sherman.

What he allowed his men to do is beyond war crimes. For what his men did in the South he should have been shot and had his body dumped in a latrine. The attack of civilian people ... it is beyond atrocities. There are others, but Sherman was attacking what for him was his own people, and inciting his troops to evil.

 

[LawrenceU]

Sherman.

What he allowed his men to do is beyond war crimes. For what his men did in the South he should have been shot and had his body dumped in a latrine. The attack of civilian people ... it is beyond atrocities. There are others, but Sherman was attacking what for him was his own people, and inciting his troops to evil.

I'll second that Ditto.

Re: Vercingetroix- I think he was actually quite brilliant. Doing what he did, with what he had, against whom he was fighting is rather amazing.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Sherman.

What he allowed his men to do is beyond war crimes. For what his men did in the South he should have been shot and had his body dumped in a latrine.

I don't have an exact quote from the horse's mouth, but per Lew Rockwell (and other sources back me up):

"Sherman admitted in his memoirs that he was taught at West Point that he could have been prosecuted and possibly hanged as a war criminal for doing the things he did. "

Of course Sherman seemed to view his war crimes as a brutal necessity; Philip Sheridan (on the other hand) seemed to enjoy it more, stating that "the people must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war."

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Sherman was the best general in the Civil War. His tactics were rough but effective, and no different from the fire-bombing of Germany and Japan employed in World War II by the US.

I voted for Darius III, simply because he squandered such a massive army to such an outmanned foe in Alexander. Granted, Alexander is one of the great generals of all time, but even a moderately competent commander could have beaten the hapless, arrogant Darius.

 

[TimV]

We should start a list of Generals who would have thought Sherman and Sheridan were wussie girl scouts who were afraid to inflict punishment ;-) How many people did Tamerlane murder just outside of Delhi? 100,000? And the low numbers for Ukrainians starved in Stalin's man made famine just in this last century were what, 3,000,000?

 

[Edward]

True, with the exception of the wound (which probably caused the destruction of his gonads by the resulting infection (poor guy!)) was cause by a rifle during a failed coup attempt.

You are correct about the Munich injury, but I was thinking there had been an earlier plane crash in Sweden. I could be mistaken, as I can't turn up a reference to it this afternoon.

-----Added 7/12/2009 at 03:12:38 EST-----

Not understanding this, Tim.

I don't see how Eisenhower was a worst general by any standard. He did not really ever lose any campaign (or even battle that I can think of),

Kasserine Pass. If he gets credit for France, he should get blame for the failures in North Africa.

Market Garden. Even more responsibility than for Kasserine.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Sherman.

What he allowed his men to do is beyond war crimes. For what his men did in the South he should have been shot and had his body dumped in a latrine. The attack of civilian people ... it is beyond atrocities. There are others, but Sherman was attacking what for him was his own people, and inciting his troops to evil.

Let us not forget the Beast Phil Sheridan as well.

 

[Edward]

I'm actually not familiar with Butler - what's his first name?

Benjamin Butler. But you can Google Beast.Butler

He basically said that his troops could treat all of the women of New Orleans like they were prostitutes. (General Order 28) if they didn't show proper respect.

He's also known for the large amount of silverware (thus the 'Spoons' nickname) and other valuables that he stole.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Sherman was the best general in the Civil War. His tactics were rough but effective, and no different from the fire-bombing of Germany and Japan employed in World War II by the US.

I voted for Darius III, simply because he squandered such a massive army to such an outmanned foe in Alexander. Granted, Alexander is one of the great generals of all time, but even a moderately competent commander could have beaten the hapless, arrogant Darius.

The decision to fire-bomb was one of destroying the manufacturing capability of the cities, not one of allow men to pillage, plunder, and kill innocents on a one by one basis. The decision to burn an individuals house ... to actually set fire to it ... is significantly different than collateral damage to deciding to burn a city that contained factories of war. Sherman himself gave orders for the army to be ruthless to civilian populations where any resistance was felt. That is unconscienable. It might be successful, but telling troops to kill innocent and guilty alike is not just "the horrors of war" it is a crime against civilization.

That the right to secede is not prohibited in the pre-war constitution, nor reserved to the federal government, means that it is reserved to the states and the people. The war of northern aggression is an appropriate name for it, and the south had a right to secede. While Lincoln may have had a grand thought of "any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure" was ended when the north refused to allow the south to depart in peace. The opening line contains "conceived in Liberty" which Lincoln destroyed by his invasion and refusal to live by the rule of law.

I'm not saying the south was right in what it did, but the rule of law was abrogated first with Lincoln in the war.

 

[Jennie]

I vote for Hitler and associates for three major blunders:
1. Not conquering Britain when they had a chance
2. Opening a two-front war by attacking Russia (they should have remembered Napoleon's experience regarding an invasion of Russia)
3. Allowing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, thus getting the US involved in the war.

The very best general in the world? My relative, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Hitler sent Rommel to Tennessee to study Forrest's tactics before WWII started.

 

[TimV]

The decision to fire-bomb was one of destroying the manufacturing capability of the cities, not one of allow men to pillage, plunder, and kill innocents on a one by one basis. The decision to burn an individuals house ... to actually set fire to it ... is significantly different than collateral damage to deciding to burn a city that contained factories of war.

I'll take a third opinion on that one. I agree with Mason that there isn't any difference between what Sherman did in the South and what we did in (among many examples) Dresden, murdering 30-40,000 civilians in an "open city" with no military manufacturing capability. I disagree with Mason, though, as I don't consider it legitimate, and I can't understand how anyone holding to Christian Just War theory could say so.

And I have to mention that Mason show personal bravery often on this board, taking unpopular stances.

 

[fredtgreco]

And I have to mention that Mason show personal bravery often on this board, taking unpopular stances.

And that is a reason I like both of you.

 

[ZackF]

Pardon the technicality but are not a couple of those guys admirals?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

And I have to mention that Mason show personal bravery often on this board, taking unpopular stances.

And that is a reason I like both of you.

Thank you Tim and Pastor Greco. The kind comments are much appreciated!

The decision to fire-bomb was one of destroying the manufacturing capability of the cities, not one of allow men to pillage, plunder, and kill innocents on a one by one basis. The decision to burn an individuals house ... to actually set fire to it ... is significantly different than collateral damage to deciding to burn a city that contained factories of war. Sherman himself gave orders for the army to be ruthless to civilian populations where any resistance was felt. That is unconscienable. It might be successful, but telling troops to kill innocent and guilty alike is not just "the horrors of war" it is a crime against civilization.

That the right to secede is not prohibited in the pre-war constitution, nor reserved to the federal government, means that it is reserved to the states and the people. The war of northern aggression is an appropriate name for it, and the south had a right to secede. While Lincoln may have had a grand thought of "any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure" was ended when the north refused to allow the south to depart in peace. The opening line contains "conceived in Liberty" which Lincoln destroyed by his invasion and refusal to live by the rule of law.

I'm not saying the south was right in what it did, but the rule of law was abrogated first with Lincoln in the war.

Brian,

I disagree with just about all of your post, especially the 2nd paragraph and last sentence. Read Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. The Confederacy was in clear violation of multiple aspects prior to seceding - Lincoln was enforcing the Constitution, which is his job. So rule of law was without question violated by the Confederacy. I'll say nothing more about this here to avoid getting further

The fire-bombing of Germany and Japan was largely intended to break the will of the people to fight. The US carpet-bombed German factories - the firebombing was unnecessary for military purposes. Tim is correct: thousands of civilians were killed in both Germany and Japan, and that says nothing of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan (which I support, by the way).

Sherman never ordered his troops to rape and pillage. Yes, they destroyed the crops and any infrastructure they could find, including railroads. This had a major impact on the civilians without question, but it also devastated the Rebel army. The line between uninvolved civilian and armed combatant is often very hazy - I wouldn't be too quick to condemn Sherman in the Civil War or Eisenhower in WWII. But if you're going to vilify Sherman, there are plenty of other "heroic" generals you must vilify as well.

 

[SolaScriptura]

McClellen - Because such a fatal combination of tactical ineptitude and pansiness has seldom been achieved by a general officer.


(But, thankfully, balance in the universe was attained by George Patton who truly was the anti-McClellen...)

 

[JonathanHunt]

General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett

...oh no, wait a minute, he wasn't real. Might as well have been though!

 

[21st Century Calvinist]

General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett

...oh no, wait a minute, he wasn't real. Might as well have been though!

Baaah!
Sadly, the reference may be lost on most North Americans.
I am impatiently waiting on Blackadder II coming from Amazon.

 

[HokieAirman]

Morally, Butler, Sherman, Sheridan. Don't know some of those generals, but I voted for McClellan cause he not only was defeated constantly by armies 1/2 and 1/4 the size of his own, but then lied in the official record about his casualties to make himself look...not quite as bad as he was.

Then again, maybe he was an OK general...Jackson & Lee just simply outclassed him at every level.

-----Added 7/18/2009 at 02:27:27 EST-----

The decision to fire-bomb was one of destroying the manufacturing capability of the cities, not one of allow men to pillage, plunder, and kill innocents on a one by one basis.

To add to that, it should be noted that it was the Americans who had 80% and higher casualty rates specifically because their leaders chose NOT to carpet-bomb at night, at high altitude. In order to reduce civilian casualties, they chose to bomb targets during the day, at low altitude. This ensured a greater chance of hitting the target and missing civilians.

We have the Providence of God and outstanding, determined fighter pilots to thank that any of our bombers survived at all.