It’s easy to forget in WWII that although we fought monsters not all of our commanders were saintly, either. Which ones do you think were particularly douchbaggy during the conflict? I’m excluding the USSR who were on another level and any Vichy France, who weren’t Allies and were French.
I’ve left the option to nominate your own, as I’m sure I’ve forgotten many.
I think you’ve got all the leading contenders there. (MacArthur gets my vote). But I want to put up Chesty Puller for Honorable Mention: according to William Manchester, he used the number of his second lieutenants killed as a yardstick of how successful his assaults were.
Probably Colonel Cathcart.
More seriously, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone votes for Churchill, though his overall leadership more than made up for his many character flaws in my view. But I don’t know enough detail about that period to cast a vote.
MacArthur gets my vote too.
Monty and Harris should not be anywhere near this list. Monty was, flat out, the best battlefield commander the Western Allies produced in WW2. Harris simply had to work with what he had - there was no alternative to attacking cities until late 1944.
Including Fredendall seems harsh, it was early days and the wheat has to be separated from the chaff. God knows enough useless early war British generals were around at least as deserving.
I suspect there should be a number of Chinese, French and Russian names that should be on this list - certainly before Patton, Monty or Harris. I mean Patton was a liability - at best a Corp commander - but he is nowhere near bad enough to be the biggest jackass in the war.
Eisenhower should be considered - he was a great coalition figurehead (Supreme Commander AEF - yes) but should not have been anywhere near being Land Forces Commander.
But I now see this poll is not asking about the quality of a commander. How do you define a “jackass”? Not getting along with folk? I prefer my generals to win battles…
I don’t remember his name, but having recently seen World At War, I’d say the general who commanded the French Army BEFORE Dunkirk.
Included Monty because his arrogance and condescension to his allies, which reached a ridiculous peak when he weighed in on the Battle of the Bulge saying “The battle has been most interesting; I think one of the most interesting and tricky battles I have ever handled.” As it was American boots on the ground who deserve all the credit it earned him a place on the list.
Included Harris because of his tunnel vision and being loath to release bombers to any other purpose including the Battle of the Atlantic, supporting Overlord or trying to cripple Germany’s oil (her Achilles heel, he dismissed those calling for oilfield bombings as ‘panacea mongers’). Plus if I was going to include LeMay it would be unfair not to include him.
Fair point on Fredendall, you’re right that there were worse generals than him (my nomination is Sir Arthur Percival, who while not a jerkass had no backbone at all). Maybe should have included General Mark Clark, who was also a primadonna and nicknamed Markus Aurelius Clarkus for his obsession with being the one to take Rome.
There sure would be a lot of Russian names before the western Allies if we’re looking at the war as a whole…probably all of them would be, with Stalin taking #1 spot. Old Blood n Guts gets the inclusion for the slapping incident, Task Force Baum and this humdinger of a quote which suggests he’d be more at home in the Wehrmacht; “There’s no such thing as shell shock. It’s an invention of the Jews.”
A tad harsh on Ike to include him, he knew his job was to win the war as quickly as possible, refused to be distracted from it and showed great diplomatic skill in dealing with the various fractious Allies under his command (even if he was astonishingly naive towards the Soviets), Monty being one of them. Anglo-American relations weren’t always roses, but it’s largely thanks to Ike smoothing things over that we forget it.
Same here, but one can still has the luxury of judging their temperament. Define jackassness and douchbaggery by your own personal standards.
Overall including after the war I would have said Lemay.
Just in the war I went with Patton.
In veteran’s pages I constantly see the praises for Patton based on the legend that has grown up around him. When I have the energy I like to point out that he was the biggest offender of what most soldiers complain about now. A leader who puts appearance above substance. One who brought a garrison mentality to the war zone. The poster child for what Ambrose described in Citizen Soldier as chickenshit. If he was around today he would have each soldier in Afghanistan wearing 3 reflective belts. Along with that he had no problem putting his men into the meat grinder to achieve his goals.
Yeah, I’d add Mark Clark to the list. His tunnel vision of glory resulted in letting German forces slip through Allied fingers, just so he could get a photo-op in Rome.
Fine! No I understand - agree keep Monty and Patton and I withdraw Eisenhower (who was ***loved ***by everybody that worked for him).
I would vote to add Mountbatten - vain and stupid.
… especially his driver, if rumours are correct. 
Read Mark Clark’s Wikipedia page.
Why was an Axis capital considered strategically unimportant?
Because Italy had surrendered. It was no longer an Axis capital.
The accusation was that its fall to the Allies was inevitable had Clark followed the plan he was supposed to and concentrated on destroying the German army.
Also, by this time, ex-Axis capital.
That was the answer I figured, thanks.
I don’t know if it is apocryphal but MacArthur is said to have referred to Eisenhower as “The best clerk I ever had.”
Withdraw Ike?
And while most of the accusations are probably hokum, not all of them are.
Anyway, Roosevelt is the easy winner for sticking millions of Americans in detainment camps.
You might want to add Admiral Ernest King to your list. If your hatred of your main ally allows the enemy to do serious damage to your own people, you might be a douchebag.
Montgomery, while a brilliant tactician, was a prime cut arrogant asshole who undercut his superiors at every opportunity. As “jerkasses” go, he was right up at the top. He spent most of the war pouting about the fact that Ike, and not he, was the Supreme Allied Commander, and spent an inordinate amount of time and energy whining to Churchill and anybody else who would listen that Ike should be relieved.
Churchill was another PITA, who wanted to direct campaigns instead of allowing field generals to do their jobs. He was dead set against the amphibious landing and push from the south of France and even arrived on the scene early so he could gloat when it failed. It was, of course, an unqualified success. Later on, he had Montgomery promoted to five-star so that he would outrank Eisenhower; a childish move that accomplished nothing.
Not Supreme Allied Commander, just Overall Land Forces Commander (Ike had both jobs but only did the first). Monty was correct from a logical point of view, but there is no way the Americans would allow a non-American general to hold that position at that point given the overwhelming strength provided by the USA.
Monty was everything you say and more, but he was the most professional ground commander the Western Allies produced and would have finished the war quicker, saved lives and not permitted the Bulge debacle to occur.
But by then it wasn’t about any of those things, it was about the USA exerting it’s authority over the United Nations. Being allies brings out the worse in soldiers!