History's biggest boobs

[Kagemusha]

Who was the Commander of the commonwelth soldiers who attacked Galliopol in WW I ?
I have always thought that the attack was just waist.

[Papewaio]

Winston Churchill was responsible for Gallopolli.

He was blasted for his failure and was out of his job, then went to the Western Front as an Officer.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Burnside. Idiot who caused countless deaths at Antietam...wait...they were Union deaths...so he was a great man! But an idiot. Plus, at fredericksburg....GAH!

[Mongoose]

hmm, i would say Mccellan, from the ACW. He a good "Arm chair" General, but was too slugish and wouldn't react until forced to(Or at least IMHO)

To be fair, he was part of a long line of highly defective people.


More information:His first battle was afew miles west of Richmond. Ironicly, it was also Lee's first battle in the ACW. He was in command of the army of the potomac. he got stuck on the peninsula and after awhile was forced out of virginia. Later, he went on the mess up the battle of antietam, along with good 'ol burn side.

[Red Harvest]

Burnside. Idiot who caused countless deaths at Antietam...wait...they were Union deaths...so he was a great man! But an idiot. Plus, at fredericksburg....GAH!

Burnside's main problem was that he was rather one-dimensional on the field. He failed to do things properly on his own initiative.

However, he did good work commanding the North Carolina expedition. It was a joint army/navy operation that caused some havoc and forced the surrender of some garrisons, giving the Union a good base. It was one of the early Union successes. Strangely, few know anything about it.

He also was able to repel Longstreet during the Knoxville campaign.

As for the bridge at Antietam, what I've read of it suggests McClellan shares part of the blame. He had badly muddled the command structure and treated Burnside poorly in the process.

Fredricksburg was a fiasco, and considerable credit for that was due to McClellan as well. Yes, even though he wasn't there, his lack of initiative had lead Lincoln to take a very hands on approach, and force Burnside into making a winter advance. It might have worked, but the weather turned on him. Also, Burnside had a struggle with the slow moving bureaucracy that characterized all Army of the Potomac affairs. What was meant to be an unopposed advance across the river turned into a heavily contested affair.

Anyway, while Burnside was not a military genius and made several large blunders, he did have his moments.

[English assassin]

Whilst Haig isn't going to win a place in the pantheon of great generals, he wasn't as bad as people think. No one, French, German or British, solved the problem of assaulting a trench line until the British at Cambrai in 1917 using tanks, or the Germans in the spring of 1918 using infiltration. So if he was an idiot he was in good company. Some of his tactical decisions were actually quite good.

His predecessor, Sir John French, was far worse, and easily the worst British commander of WW1 (a hotly contested title).

IMHO not finding a way to have accomodated the reasonable political aspirations of the Northern American settlers within the UK or at least a UK commonwealth has been shown by the subsequent course of history to be a pretty big boob from the UK's point of view, not that it would necessarily have been easy to do.

[InsaneApache]

IMHO not finding a way to have accomodated the reasonable political aspirations of the Northern American settlers within the UK or at least a UK commonwealth has been shown by the subsequent course of history to be a pretty big boob from the UK's point of view, not that it would necessarily have been easy to do.

A pipe dream I'm afraid. The colonists were always going to secede, despite what our American friends have been spoon fed for the last 200+years the war wasn't really about freedom, accountability and justice, but rather a handful of powerful landowners that saw an opportunity to run their 'own' country. Let's face it, what would you rather be. A big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond....or have your own pond and charge rent?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

A pipe dream I'm afraid. The colonists were always going to secede, despite what our American friends have been spoon fed for the last 200+years the war wasn't really about freedom, accountability and justice, but rather a handful of powerful landowners that saw an opportunity to run their 'own' country. Let's face it, what would you rather be. A big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond....or have your own pond and charge rent?

Actually my AP US History class went into that a great deal. The majority of classes may not deal with that, and classes under the High School level don't. But we focused a great deal on that issue.

[Mount Suribachi]

Can't believe no-one included this fella




Nice bloke by all accounts, but not what you need when you're dealing with one of the most evil meglomaniacs in history...

And to him can be added the top ranks of the French government and military in 1940...


As for Haig, didn't he build himself quite a reputation during the colonial wars in Africa? Or am I confusing him with another British commander of that era?

What about hitler himself? Didnt he stop those panzer divisions advancing onto the british positions during the dunkirk campaign? plus he wasnt a very good strategist anyway, although to be honest i'm a bit fixxy on the details

Actually I believe he merely approved von Runstedts request that the over-stretched and weakened Panzers could be better deployed elsewhere as the British were "already beaten".

[AntiochusIII]

Actually my AP US History class went into that a great deal. The majority of classes may not deal with that, and classes under the High School level don't. But we focused a great deal on that issue.

Yup. I am taking it now, and the textbook states that the American wealthy class included the sweeping statement of human equality because they sought support by the masses. Nonetheless, one could presume reasonably that Thomas Jefferson, an idealistic genius that he was, probably have more in his mind than just realpolitik, while his fellow Congressmen might percieve it as such.

On the other hand, the "lower" history classes are paper thin in motives, and much more prone to propaganda. They don't state the propaganda, of course, but the very lack of information itself leaves the students to agree with the popular patriotic concept (reinforced by earlier propaganda from the earlier wars) of the motives of that age.

By the way, that textbook is very depressing if the reader tries to truly understand American history. Racism, segregation, conflicts, fraud, mob stupidity, higher class greed, troubles, stupid/evil presidencies, with the last one getting worse as years gone by--all were examined in it. And things looks no better at the start of America's 3rd century.

[Beirut]

Haig was responsible for Passchendaele, Third Ypres.

That alone justifies his infamous inclusion in any Grand Order of the Idiot.

[ShadesPanther]

Whilst Haig isn't going to win a place in the pantheon of great generals, he wasn't as bad as people think. No one, French, German or British, solved the problem of assaulting a trench line until the British at Cambrai in 1917 using tanks, or the Germans in the spring of 1918 using infiltration. So if he was an idiot he was in good company. Some of his tactical decisions were actually quite good.

His predecessor, Sir John French, was far worse, and easily the worst British commander of WW1 (a hotly contested title).

Haig wanted a breakthrough but Joffre and one of Haig's Generals (I just can't remember his name) wanted a battle of attrition. As you can clearly see with the deployments it was never an attempt at a breakthrough. Of Course It is kind of his fault for not getting his way.
One thing people never mention is that the British won the battle of attrition. The Germans lost more men and better trained and experienced men too.

As for Haig, didn't he build himself quite a reputation during the colonial wars in Africa? Or am I confusing him with another British commander of that era?

He fought in India, Sudan (Ommaduran) and the Boer war.
He was relativel successful and was like by the PM so basically he replaced French, Who did try but was untimately out of his depth.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Who was the Commander of the commonwelth soldiers who attacked Galliopol in WW I ?
I have always thought that the attack was just waist.

.
Ian Hamilton was effectively the commander I think, but it was Churchill's plan.
.