I attended Norwich University, the oldest of the private military colleges in the USA, (founded in 1819) . I graduated in 1987, and many of the University's staff and instructors were veterans of the Second World War. One of my mentors, was a ranking officer in the European theater, and I had the privilege of talking history with him on many occasions. He despised General Mark Clark, he called him a glory hound. He described him as the worst type of officer you could become. He was willing to see men under his command butchered as well as disobey direct orders all in his never ending pursuit of medals, so called glory, and higher rank and position. My mentor always said it was important for cadets to learn about such officers so they knew what not to do.
Hello Brian, I posted the below in my own post but I am copy pasting it below as it says a lot in reply to what you said here as a defense of the other side of Clark: I think the hate for Clark is misplaced. Very few people look at things from his perspective. He was a WW1 veteran and he saw the fighting in Italy as another WW1. Further he (correctly) thought that WW2 would never end as a result of the armies in Italy pushing North. They would never cross the Alps. So the only goal of the troops in Italy was to keep the German troops there and prevent them from retreating and being placed on defensive lines on the Western or Eastern front. So Clark had the goal of just keeping as many of his troops in Italy alive as he could so long as they kept the German troops in their positions. Pushing North to the Alps would do nothing to end the war faster. Then lastly, of note on the moving on Rome. Many people say he did this for "his glory". That doesn't make sense. Clark is one of the few generals of a high enough rank to know that D-Day was happening the very next day. He would know he was not going to get "glory from taking Rome. The actual reason he took Rome rather then try to surround some of the German troops was because first the idea that they were going to easily surround the German troops is false. Maybe they would surround some of the Germans maybe not. But trying to do so would cost lives and as stated above that was one of his goals to try to keep low. And then secondly had Clark tried to surround the German units and if he succeeded in doing so or not that could have caused the new battle line between the allied and German troops to be going either trough or close to Rome. Thus leading to WW2 combat within or close to Rome causing a large amount of civilian and military deaths through such urban combat. People forget that it had been a allied goal to take Rome much earlier then they did. So Clark taking Rome to prevent deaths and complete and goal does actually make sense and is why he was not punished for the decision he made. It was not a guarantee that he would have surrounded the German troops and even if he did what does that do? There is still fighting in Italy and maybe that fighting is happening close to or within Rome itself. That could have been a worse result. SO I think Clark taking the safe decision in taking Rome then was actually the correct move for him to make. Because no matter what there is still going to be fighting happening in Italy and no matter what the war is not ending through the allied armies in Italy pushing North.
@@PhillyPhanVinny WHAT A LOAD OF SHITE 💩💩💩💩💩 !!!!!! If any of what you said was accurate, why did Clark resolutely prevent any other ALLY (British, South African, Indian, Australian, New Zealand, Polish, French, Brazilian, Greek) march through Rome!!!! Clark was a disgrace!! But it is impolite to tell a host of widows tbat their husbands died because of a general's vanity!!!
@@johnegan7622 Why don't people like you don any research before making comments like this. I'll explain why that is such a dumb comment. When Clark took Rome he was just the commander of the US 5th army not the 15th army group (both the US 5th army and British 8th army). So when he took Rome he was not in command of anything but US troops. Later when he became 15th army group commander the allies had already pushed well past Rome. What was he supposed to do then? Send non-American units many miles backwards so they could march through Rome? that is insane. Even the 15th Army Group commander when Rome was taken British General Alexander would of thought such a idea insane. The Americans were pushing up the Western side of Italy where Rome was so they were right there. To send a non-American division to Rome on a silly parade would me taking divisions off the line on the East coast of Italy and sending them over to Rome. Absolutely no point in doing that.
@@PhillyPhanVinny There is no question that Clark saw Rome as a great prize, not for the Allies but for Fifth Army - a force that he had nurtured since its formation in North Africa - and also for America. The glory that might be bestowed upon him would be welcome, but this should not cloud the fact that Clark recognised how important the capture of Rome, by Americans, would be back home in the US as far as future operations in Italy were concerned, and in giving Fifth Army the credit he believed they were due. Exacerbating this was his suspicion that the British - and Eighth Army in particular - were trying to steal his show whenever possible; and in the days before Montgomery left to take on the Normandy job, there was, in fact, some truth in this. ‘Clark was always very sensitive about the taking of Rome,’ said Alex. ‘I assured Clark that neither I nor Leese wanted the Eighth Army to participate in its capture; we felt it fell naturally into the Fifth Army’s area.’ A few days before the battle began, one of Clark’s periodic paranoias began to develop over the matter. ‘I know factually that there are interests brewing for the Eighth Army to take Rome,’ he vented in his diary, ‘and I might as well let Alexander know now that if he attempts any thing of the kind he will have another all-out battle on his hands; namely, with me.’ Strong words, but at that time, he knew Fifth Army’s role in the battle was due to be secondary - until the Anzio breakout at any rate - with Eight Army’s effort down the Liri Valley expected to be the main push. In other words, he could see that Eighth Army might storm ahead and reach Rome first despite reassurances to the contrary.
Funny enough many here in Australia have more or less the same view of MacArthur, at least those with an interest in history who don't just swallow the continued low level propaganda surrounding the man.
My father served under Clark as a junior officer, and was wounded at Anzio. While he never specifically mentioned Clark by name, he often said he was in more danger from his superior officers than he was from the Germans.
This ""tradition"" continues. My father was in 1st Squad,1st Platoon, Troop B, 91st Reconnaisance Squadron, working for S-2, S-3 at II Corps. They wouldn't say it, but as recon then, they were in contact almost every day. They were proud of doing their job. They were NOT proud of having to serve under Clark. The things I heard about him at the dinner table would make you blush.
My Grandpa was a T-Patcher: 36th ID, 143d infantry regiment at Anzio and fought against the 1st Fallschirmjäger in the night battle at Velletri. He was shot by a sniper in the Alban Hills and was injured badly enough that he was sent home to recover. He despised Mark Clark.
A former acquaintance of mine (we now live several hours apart) posted a picture on FB of his great uncle, iirc, getting decorated by Clark himself. He was in the Texas Division.
According to my junior ROTC instructor, an army colonel and Veteran of Italy in World War II, the 36th Infantry Division curse his name! It was the Rapido River Crossing, indeed!
Don't forget Major General John Dahlquist, the 442nd (and 1-3rd bn) hated him with passion as he was a bad micro manager and worst commander they ever had.
As a kid I used to go with my grandfather to an RBL branch which had a number of veterans of one particular battalion that was at Anzio. Whenever the topic came up it always came around to how much they despised Clark.
I resume they were the division forced to make the crossings under well-aimed and continuous 88 fire over a river in full spring flood. My dad said they went down to the crossings and observed the crest was so high you couldn't see the other bank...
My. Dad served in the 66th Div. infantry as a first Co. scout. He thought Gen. Clark was wonderful in the battle of the Rhone Valley in 44. Clark kept right on pushing the Germans, so they couldn’t salvage their panzers for spare parts. This doomed their defenses and they had to run off from the Americans leaving their panzers for the French to salvage. The Weremacht relied on salvaging for their spares. They folded and retreated back to Germany. No other American General kept rolling over German trucks and Armor to this extent!
@@davekoenig9935 You sure you aren’t talking about General Bruce Clarke. I do not believe Mark Clark ever left the Italian Campaign to serve in Northern Europe.
@@davekoenig9935 Wrong General. Your dad would have been serving under General Bruce Clarke. General Mark Clark never left Italy. He became general in charge of italy after it was taken and
@@geodes6722 The Rhône River empties into the Med. near Marseilles. After D Day, Gen. Clark’s troops invaded the South of France and chased the Germans all the way north, up the Rhone Valley. Germans never got the chance to salvage spare parts off of battle damaged panzers, so no counter attacks, which were their stock in trade. Frogs got all those engines, transmissions, excetera!
So, can we have a moment of appreciation for Dr. Pahl? He looked a bit frustrated at times due to the language barrier, wanted to tell us more, but couldn't find the right words. Your words were more than correct, Comrade and you told us about an amazing piece of history!
Well done Men. Having done more reading about the Eastern Front, I was not aware that Hitler took over so much calling so many decisions over his Generals....poor Gen Paulus. He had paperwork smarts, but couldnt a military decision to save the troops or himself. Such a shame. No way did he belong in the field.
@@truthbtold2910 Well, Grofaz was indeed called "that little corporal". I like how Bernhard and his fellow scholars are telling us, that the story is a bit more complex and it wasn't Hitler alone who was that one silly sausage, but the generals themselves screwed up just as badly. And no, Germany losing the war is not a shame, but a pretty okay thing. Although that (again!) is debatable, as there are countries which would have benefited from their victory. Buuut that's heresy territory- not good for yt comment section :D I'd love a reality check video about the convoluted mess that Nazi administration was to debunk the 200% Ordnung myth, but it's far beyond the scope of military history. The army part will have to suffice.
@@truthbtold2910 iirc one of the other Generals was telling Paulus unofficially to "ignore Hitler, smash his radios and break out." I can't remember who.. maybe Zeitzler(?)
It took me a few videos to learn how to "hear" your accent, but it's been very much worth the effort! I've read about and wargamed WW2 actions for far too many years, and stumbled over German words, especially equipment designations, of thirty or forty letters. I have very much enjoyed not only your take on historical events from a viewpoint that isn't American-centric, but especially hearing a native German-speaker breeze through words that have left me cold for decades. These videos are a cut above the RUclips average and I thank you very much for producing them, and hope you're able to keep going for as long as you find it enjoyable.
The key to getting the hang of those frankenwords is to first understand that is what they are. German allows for any number of nouns, when written, to be strung together end-to-end into a single word. When spoken, however, it's a string of individual words just like any other sentence. Once you get the hang of what the individual words are, it becomes much easier to figure out where to put the breaks and unpack the whole thing and it gets a lot less intimidating.
Thanks,@@nathanrandall7003. I understand the concept; nashorn (nose horn) = rhinoceros. It's the execution I have issues with. I understand the concept of open heart surgery, too. Any volunteers to be my first patient? ;-D
@@nathanrandall7003 Well explained! We Germans love to build words as long as a Pythons!😂 And yes, we speak a kind of pidgin english. But listen to a Scotsman (I like them!) and find out which language is spoken.😂😇
@@formwiz7096 The issue was about the strategic decision to land at Anzio. It was the failure of command after the invasion, including the entire campaign in Italy.
Alternatively, they could have given the Germans plenty of time to prepare properly if they had stayed waiting on the line of the Rapido. Mountains give you no good options.
I heard post war Clark never officially visited Texas and was never invited to reunions etc. And this scuttled his planned political career. How much easier could the campaign have been with even just 30k German PoWs with Rome. Or if Clark hadn't told Anzio's Lucas to be cautious.
@@prof_kaos9341 36th ID, my dad was from Conn (not texas) and had many new england pals in his anti-tank squad. he was not a fan of mark clark. And either was walter huston the famous film director. he made an award winning film about the battle to capture 'San Peitro'. clark was not liked over his bad decision to attack over the Rapido River. many unnecessary casualties.
@@lawrencemay8671 the rapido river crossing devistated the personel of the 36th so much so they had to be taken out of the line for replacements and R & R.
My great uncle, who served in the 36th, said that Clarke had the ego of Patton without the success. He derided Clarke as incompetent and over confident. As to who is most hated, I think it’s a matter of the man on the ground following orders and their perspective
@@billdavis2788 A drug called reality. I know Patton fans hate facts but Patton made a name for himself by being an obnoxious bafoon, not by doing anything actually significant.
@@GUYCLIP Bastogne would have been relieved no matter who was leading the Third Army, the Germans were out of fuel and once weather had cleared the allies had completely uncontested air superiority.
I've been to walk the ground of the Cassino offensive, read the books etc. To throw the enormous sacrifice away and let the Axis retreat safely to the next defensive line - that's professionally unforgiveable. To do it for a photo op is barely human.
Gen clark had a job to do and it was a horrorable job he did his duty and was always troubled by his decissions but his duty was to win and he facilitated the victorys. Men die in war and all generals are never regarded as pals by the troops who have to carry out the personal battles planned by generals.
My father was a tactical reconnaissance Spitfire pilot in Italy. His squadron was attached to the US 15th air force. In his flying logbook he has an entry for a reconn flight in a Fairchild Argus, the second person onboard was Mark Clark.
While Clark deserves some pounding the Italian camaign was a Britsh hatched plan and Monty did no better as a matter of fact they moved him probably to save face.Later using the excuse he was helping to plan Normandy.This was Winston's soft underbelly theory as he dragged his feet on OVERLORD saying the beaches woul run red with/from British/American soldiers.Of course after it's initial success Winston,Brooke and Leigh Mallorey were like "HEAR-HEAR"
@@bigwoody4704 bullshit. No other general had the nous to command the ground forces for Overlord. There was great satisfaction in Italy when Clarkewas kicked upstairs and Truscott ( a first class General) took over 5th Army. It was a shame he wasn’t given the DRAGOON sideshow.
Not bullshit reading Descision in Normand right now.There were huge meetings with hundreds of planners Admiral Ramsay planned a lot more of the landings.Monty was put there for political consideration only.His actions were waning quickly after the desert where he couldn't lose.He won with the weight of allied advantages.And Clark made alot of mistakes also and had an ego to match Monty's. The Dragoon Operation was a huge success,Churchill had no business in a council of war.He didn't want it launched because of his own cock ups in Italy.Both Stalin and Roosevelt were tired of Winston henpecking.The whole south of France along the med was grabbed/liberated(unlike Italy) with very little losses.And the operation there concluded a month ahead of time.Churchill couldn't stand the fact the GIs were advancing with out him.Devers 6th Army group including General Patch's 7th Army and free French 1st Army went in.Remember the French? - they wanted their country back. So they happily went in with the GIs
I've seen interviews with Canada Veterans who were told to halt there advance just 20+ something miles away from Rome for the Americans to take the Glory. Just two days later would be D Day and these men were called the "D Day Dodgers" witch was in many ways an insult considering the amount of action in Italy the men went through, the Allied soldiers in Italy felt that their sacrifices were being ignored after the invasion of Normandy, and a "D-Day Dodger" a reference to someone who was supposedly avoiding real combat by serving in Italy, whereas the reality was anything but. 🇨🇦🇨🇦
That's a good point, well made. The Canadian 2nd Armoured Brigade, which was one of the best tank units fighting in Italy, was talked about in the military TV series "Greatest Tank Battles" and those veterans describe how they were held back so the American units could ride through Rome first and claim all the glory. As an American soldier, this embarasses me greatly.
Clark is still hated here in Texas. The 36th ID was the Texas National Guard division. It is said that after the Rapido, the characteristic Texas accent was seldom heard in its ranks.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer I remember reading about that attack in a Time-life series of books , almost brought me to tears ....... and i am from England
Clarke was the wrong man in definitely the wrong place. The hideous terrain meant any offensive campaign from the southern tip of Italy would be a nightmare. Europe’s “soft underbelly” was a flawed concept from the beginning. Clarke’s lack of tactical and strategic acumen compounded the situation.
Fighting through urban settings in the mountains: *literally the hardest combat task* Churchill: “it’s free real estate!” The Germans: “Are you sure about that?”
There's a misapprehension about the purpose of the Italy campaign which is partly caused by the "soft underbelly" maxim. Churchill might have had hopes of attacking Germany from the South, ignoring the landings in France. Brooke* did not have any such intention. The primary purpose of the Italian campaign was to get troops from the Western allies in combat with Germany and Italy at a time when the USSR was seriously stretched. Stalin wanted a Western front in 1942. Whether or not it failed didn't matter so much to him. The point was to have the Germans occupied elsewhere. The invasion of Italy had the aim of knocking Italy out of the war, and then tying down large numbers of German troops who would not be available to fight in Russia or defend France. This was precisely what Brooke wanted. The fact that the fighting in Italy was so brutal and long-lasting meant that in spite of tactical reverses, the strategy was paying off. The Americans were surprised that Kesselring was so determined to hold every foot of ground in Italy. Brooke noted irritably that it was just what they'd told them would happen. It meant that as the war developed in Northern Europe, troops could be diverted from Italy for operations such as the invasion of Southern France (though Churchill again opposed this). This is why Clark's diversion to Rome was so harmful. The point of the Italian operation was primarily to tie down and write off German military capacity, not to occupy territory.
@@westprog2012 It’s true that Brooke envisioned an eventual cross channel invasion. However, according to his statement at the Trident Conference he thought no direct confrontation in France was possible until 1945 or 46. The Americans thought that he, like most of his British colleagues, was reluctant to confront the Germans in France because of experiences in WW1 and early WW2. Brooke, like Marshall, was bitterly disappointed that Eisenhower was chosen as Supreme Allied Commander thus diluting his influence on future strategy.
@@westprog2012 Not only that but the Italy Campaign for the British was not really about winning the war in Europe but was about effectively clearing the Mediterranian of Enemy shipping and thus facilitating a return of the British presence in South East Asia. It should be noted that the freeing up of shipping caused by the invasion of Italy not only had a dramatic positive impact on supplies to British forces in Burma allowing them to go on the offensive due to the massively shorter supply route but also in allowing the creation of the British Pacific Fleet.
I had a revelation in Vietnam, I was in Special Forces, we went back into a site we had vectored B52s, Phantoms and Cobras onto, by infiltrating an NVA regiments encampment and placing a signal to allow the bombing to hit the place. After the strikes, we went back in to conduct evaluation, we met opposition and got into a firefight. We bugged out and we’re followed. SOP (standard operating procedure) for small group missions (our group numbered 5) was immediate withdrawal and exfiltration then helicopter extraction, it being accepted that in a small group even 1 wounded soldier meant the group lost all tactical viability. We went through the SOP disengaged, bugged out to an acceptable area for helicopter extraction and radioed in for extraction. Our Commanding Officer countermanded the request (from base some 100 miles away), ordered us to remain in place, left us there the next 30 hours, then choppered in with 26 soldiers. In effect, he left our group out there as bait, hoping to collect some kudos. I never took an order again in Vietnam without thinking of that turd. He never had another posting in Special Forces, he forgot that soldiers, including Senior Non Commissioned Officers have an extensive network which includes every Officer they have ever served with, the word was put out very fast.
The broadcaster (and Anzio veteran) Alan Whicker certainly didn't like him very much, in fact in what is a fairly easy going war memoir by a man who'd interviewed all sorts of bad hats his obvious dislike of Clark stands out. EDIT: The chapter about Clark in the book "Whicker's War" is called "Hitler would have had him shot."
@@stamfordly6463 So you disagree with Whicker? Hitler generally (no pun intended) didn't have under-performing generals executed like Stalin, just demoted or sacked like in the Western allied armies HC.
This video might break RUclips... My Grandfather served in Italy with the 5th Rece Corp within the 5th Inf Div ..... he had nothing but an active dislike for the man, the only pay back was Mark Clark’s “ triumph into Rome” was spoilt by D Day so the news largely ignored him and his audience with the Pope was largely missed. No side to Clark. My family had a relation that was Mark Clark”s nanny..... my Grandfather had views on her efficiency in keeping the child from harm as well, as he suffered the General’s strategy in that campaign. “ Why couldn’t she have dropped him on his head” ,was how he used to put it. I guess he had his reasons ......Anzio for starters.
Salute to your Grandfather. My Dad was a veteran of the Normandy to Germany theatre. He always said he was glad he didn't have to fight in Italy...doubly glad that he didn't have fight in the Pacific theater!
Being 5th Inf Div those fellas got about, if the bombs had not been dropped his Div would have likely gone to the Far East.... something no one was happy with, “they had done their bit “was the thought of the time... he had been at the liberation of KZ camp at Bergan.... he had seen enough.
@@scottyfox6376 I think what endeared him to Kiwis was an overheard remark about stopping the offensive once the casualty count got to 1000. At the time, Kiwis were conducting it.
@@davidprosser7278 Alternatively, the orders could have been 'Keep going till you take it'. Without taking taking Monte Cassino, the Italian campaign stalls ...
You should read about what the Canadian 1 corps (on the right of the French) along with British units did in the Liri valley and further on the South Africans ...and they were stopped on the outskirts of Rome by Clark so US division from Anzio would get the credit for capturing the city...what a tool.
@@bigwoody4704 When was Monty in Italy?? Monty left Italy after Sicily and the initial invasion in the south. Harold Alexander was the British Chap in Italy and was not hated like Clark.
The word 'hated' brings strong emotions into it. I think a more accurate assessment would be that Fredendall was only in command for a short time and had poor command performance. I do not believe he was actually hated by his troops. Stillwell is mostly hated by the Chinese because his incompetence got a large Chinese army destroyed, in addition to having horrible relations with Chinese leaders. Clark is hated because he had the ego of Patton but with much less success.
@@leary4 The nationalists were a mess, but Stillwell was a regimental commander promoted vastly over his level of competence. Jiang was a tinpot dictator, but far from a fool. Jiang was overmatched from the beginning, but managed to keep the KMT together and fighting.
@A Velsen " The love for Stillwell was always a Cold War myth, only sustained by deceitful accounts" Who loving Stillwell was a myth? I'm afraid ya showed ur cards with the knee mortar thing, that was the myth that never was. The nationalists were crooks. They went to Taiwan and established a crooked state and it took decades to un bend it. Look my friend sometimes a tall building is just a tall building...... and Chaing was a very tall building.
MHI. My grandfather was in the navy in the pacific I can tell you his opinion, sorry FACT! The most. Hated general in all of history from 1775 till the end of time is Dugout Doug
Even his biographers LIED about him, to make him look better. In the movie, "MacArthur", with Gregory Peck playing him, they depict HIM as the originator of the concept of BYPASSING Japanese strong points like Rabaul, and leaving them to "wither on the vine". According to Geoffery Perrett in "There's a War to be Won, the history of the U.S. Army in WWII", the concept originated in the Pentagon, and was RESISTED at first by MacArthur. I honestly think he was more held in contempt by his men, rather than actively hated the way Mark Clark was.
@@richardcall9509 he scuppered the whole prewar plan ( that I think he helped write ) of hunkering down in the interior of the Philippines and waiting for help , just at the point when it was obvious that that help was going to take a lot longer to get there. The only thing you can’t blame him for is how the AAC managed to get it’s self Caught on the ground after they knew what happened at Hickam and wake and tried to avoid that.
If you compare McArthur's effectiveness in the Pacific to Nimitz's you'd probably change your tune. Nimitz gets all the glory, but he also used brute force without regard to casualties - and boy did the Marines take casualties. McArthur used containment strategies to neutralize Japanese forces in place and took far fewer casualties. The difference is that Nimitz stayed out of the public eye while McArthur did not. As a result, McArthur had a lot more enemies and his historical appraisal (for better or worse) reflects it.
I don't think you can classify it as the "capture" of Rome. Rome was declared an "open" city. The allies walked in without any resistance , thank goodness after all the men that were lost in bitter fighting at Monte Casino etc.
My dad loved Gen. Clark. He fought in Korea. Before Clark took command they were short of everything. After Clark took command, my dad told me he went to the Quartermaster to get some thread to sew a button that had fallen off a coat. He walked out with new gloves, socks, a warm hat, and a new coat. Before Clark they were always short of ammunition. With Clark they got ammunition. If they were denied hot food and had to eat cold food out of a can, their Officers were eating cold food, too. Before Clark Officers got hot food and enlisted men got hot food if they allowed it. With Clark if an Officer denied his men hot food he ate cold food, too. My dad told me that with Clark they spent bullets. Before Clark they spent men. Dad really thought the world of Clark. He didn't fight in Italy or during the Second World War. Maybe Clark learned some things. ;-)
@@Ye4rZero If you read A GENERALS LIFE by Gen. Omar Bradley, you get the same story about Gen. Patton. The movie PATTON was based on that book, but the book tells a different story. The War changed Patton. Seeing men he sent to fight dead and wounded really affected him and he became a much better General. More sympathetic to the men he was leading. The movie showed that a little - at the start of the movie he is kicking and slapping his men. At the end it showed him kissing an exhausted soldier. That may be what happened to Clark. ;-)
I have never understood why Clark was not relieved of command, I can only guess either Italy was considered secondary in importance or he had some kind of political connections.
@freebeerfordworkers I think that in these situations politics often decides the outcome. Whatever the SNAFU they had to make Clark look like a hero for liberating Rome and make the best of a bad job.....I think I am agreeing with you entirely therefore...not only that I seem to have repeated what you said....doh!
McArthur was one of the most beloved generals of the war. Yeah there were some who hated him, but even through the Koran War he was popular enough to challenge the power of the President. And when Truman finally got rid of him it was a major scandal. MacArthur was a lot like Monty. They both knew how to get the rank and file to cheer for them and the were exceptionally skilled at playing the press which led to them probably being the two most overrated Generals of the Western Allies. Patton fits that two and is also massively overrated, but he was a good general and there aren't many I would prefer leading an armoured spearhead (although pretty much any other circumstance I take Bradley ahead of him in a heartbeat).
Clarck and McArthur made the same horrible mistake: push towards a capitol when the enemy main force was ready to be surrounded. A large portion of the Acis forces in Italy could have been surrounded after the final breakthrough, but wanting honkr more then victory he pushed for Rome instead, same as McArthur pushing for Seoul after Inchon instead of cutting of the North-Koreans around Bhutan. There is one other instance where this happened: capturing Paris instead of linking up with the Dragoon forces moving North, letting around 100.000 Germans escape, but neither of the above heroes was involved in that...
@@sjonnieplayfull5859 have no idea if the liberation of Paris was orders from Ike , but considering that hitler ordered it destroyed I know it was politically motivated, not for glory but as a gesture towards the free French , not saying capturing 100k Germans wouldn’t have been better, but if I had been in charge it’s something I would have to at least taken under consideration.
I have a recollection that Clark was not popular with the author of The Ultra Secret. The author's job was to brief the commands about what it was and how to use it. He said Clark sat there chewing his gum, got bored and left.
He didn't comprehend the significance of the Ultra intercepts??? What a f!@kwit! No side in all of human history has had such a view of the enemy's communications and quite possibly never will again and he got bored and left his briefing? That behaviour should have been reported back up the chain of command.
@@markfryer9880 if General Marshall had wind of this, he most likely would've relieved Clark of Command. Marshall was known for firing officers that didn't perform to expectations.
@@black10872 Maybe Clark was in with Marshall, you know, like the son of an old West Point buddy or something, or had him "where the hair is short"? Jerks like him often get promoted and become fixtures because of political connections, not because of competence. It only comes to light later when they are actually (unexpectedly?) called on to do the job they have the title for.
@@tomt373 no. Marshall was 16 years older than Clark. Marshall went to West Point just before Clark left his toddler stage. They were not buddies. However, Clark was good friends with Eisenhower. That's the culprit right there.
@@black10872 Thanks for the correction. Yes, they were old West Point buddies that actually lived in the same barracks. Do you think that Eisenhower was more about placating political interests then winning the war? I seems that way to me.
What is astounding is Clark stayed in command for as long as he did, and continued to move up in the Army. That sort of undercuts the narrative Eisenhower was a "supreme" commander, or that his boss, General Marshall, was a genius in finding leaders for the European Campaign.
General Jacob Devers was Clark's superior. Every time he showed up at Clark's HQs. the staff officers thought Devers was going to fire him. When asked why he didn't fire Clark, Devers said "I wanted to but didn't have a replacement for him." Ike protected Clark by taking away every promotable Corps commander away from Devers for the D-Day campaign.
When asked about writing an introduction to general Clark’s memoirs Winston Churchill refused , possibly due to his allowing the German army to retreat and as you know the allies were still fighting in Italy at wars end
Another interesting aspect about Clark is, that he was Commander in Chief US Forces in Austria after the war (1945-1947). In austrian postwar History he is seen in no way negative and he was actually well respected for the his work rebuilding the country (at the least in the US sector)
Makes sense. He was a great administrator and military theorist but he was not very good at adapting on the fly and in direct command. Pattons immaturity forced him into this role.
@@davidmurdoianmacdonald2399 What coup, you mean some people walking about. Are you seriously trying to tell us that an unarmed man in a silly hat taking photo's amounts to a coup? Jeez some mothers do have them
While Clark underperformed compared to other US generals, he had to execute Churchill's insane strategy of defeating Germany via the mountainous Italian peninsula, which was well-defended by the Deutches Heer.
I always thought that Lloyd Fredendall would be the most hated general. Well, he was promoted to safety quickly after Kasserine Pass catastrophe, so many didn't probably get his name right.
I was surprised you didn’t include in your presentation a word or two about General Clark’s choice for VI Corp Commander of the amphibious forces that landed at Anzio, Italy-Major General John P. Lucas. Lucas was an extremely poor choice to lead the Anzio landings. One of rare elements in Lucas’ defense was the terrible advice and confusing orders given by Clark to Lucas prior to the commencement of the landing on how to conduct the operation. General Clark additionally compounded the Anzio disaster by his (Clark) dithering while the operation fell apart, and the inexcusable length of time Lucas was allowed to remain in command of VI Corp; excessive time that contributed significantly to failure of the Anzio operation.
Agreed. He was basically an artillery man and not suite to the role. His orders were to move inland as quickly as possible and capture the high ground of the Albin Hill. But Clark encouraged him to ignore the orders of Gen. Alexander and Eisenhower, staying where Lucas felt more comfortable. So the Germans then took the high ground and played havoc on the Anzio landings. The Italian campaign just may have ended a lot sooner if it was not for Clark's interference. The French didn't like him either when he left their flank exposed and made his vain glorious dash for Rome. It cost lives!
Whether Clark thought the Italian theater was worthwhile or not the combined chiefs in Great Britain gave Clark the amphibious equipment reserved for d day in order to conduct the Anzio landing. The end result was the landing accomplished nothing, the amphibious resources could not be returned to GB and Eisenhower went forward with d day without an LST to spare. Pretty much sums up Lucas and Clarks idea of initiative.
Hard to beat Stillwell. He did a lousy job of even trying to work with Chiang, exacerbated by his reliance on pro-Soviet advisors like Own Lattimore, John Vincent and John Service, who were effectively doing their best to undermine the ROC government For background information, I suggest the late M. Stanton Evans' "Blacklisted by History" about the so-called McCarthy era.
I have made a note of Evans's book. Seventy-five years of being told in schools and the media that thinking communism is a threat is benighted and silly paranoia have preceded the present crisis. Tuchman says that Stilwell admired the fighting qualities of the communists and implies that neither she nor he was much worried about their ideology and objectives. Of course, Vinegar Joe didn't get along with either Peanut of Chennault. What do you say to the assertion that Stilwell's task was really impossible, with inadequate manpower and materiel for warfare in Burma, and Chiang's traditional Chinese approach to war? - He and Clark were very different men, though, were they not?
As always, when giving out awards for worst general, it will always and inevatably be hugely dependant on perspective. I think one might argue that Mark Clark was quite likely the worst general commanding american soldiers during WW2. He did a lot of things wrong (and for the wrong reasons), probably prolonging the italian campaign by months. Thus his vanity and pigheadedness very likely caused thousands of allied casualities. Stillwell, did more or less similar stupid things as Mark Clark and very likely from similar reasons. But he did them for a longer time, with more troops involved and thus casuing considerably more casualities. And worse still: his ineptitude caused also caused political problems (between the US and the Chinese, and between the US and the British) which damaged the entire China and South East Asia campaign of WW2. The consequences of some of those problems might still be felt even today. I think one could argue that Mark Clark was a local disaster, causing allied losses in a direct and clearly visible way. Whereas Stillwell was a disaster on a geopolitical scale causing even larger direct casualities among the chinese. Added to that he very probably might have - in a more indirect and less visible way - caused as many american losses during WW2 as Mark Clark managed to do.
Stilwell he was so bad that a famous Brit Commander told his comms people not to take any calls from Stilwell He had just ruined Merrills Marauders as a fighting unit and the Brit was not going to allow him to do it to his men
Burma was Britsh possesion and the GIs being from a republic shouldn't have been there. Of course your precious Crown forgot about helping the ANZACs that were helping the crown. That's alright tatters an emerging world power picked up the tab - as was expected
@@bigwoody4704 When will you Americans learn that the Crown had no control of the War And as far as Britain not helping,` that was that HALF AMERICAN fat slug Churchill not the King. You never picked up Australias' tab my friend we paid you off for lend Lease in the tax year 46/47 [ Source Wayne Swann Australian Treasurer 1990s ] You on the other hand owed more to Australia than we owed you. [Source Australian War Museum Research Centre 2008 ?] The problem was you never paid us back You still technically owes us today /
I guess you must know his orders were to cut Highway 6 then go for Rome. This he did but with one div sending the bulk of his troops to Rome. The review of this said he had obeyed his orders but not their intent.
I'd like to suggest humbly a topic for a video. American-Japanese troops fighting at Monte Casino. I had, as child, the rare chance, to talk with such a veteran and what he told was infuriating!
My father was removed off the dead pile at the Rapido. A mortar got him. Shrapnel from his chest down. It was an Asian American medic that saw his fingers twitching and on a second check he had a pulse. My father was hit on the second crossing. He was 19 yrs old at the time. He never talked much, my grandmother told us. He used to awake screaming at night and sweat through his clothes. The PTSD was horrible. His best friend Robert Provost had his head blown off next to my father. He's in an American Cemetery in Italy. My brother is named after him. Robert Provost was adopted. It took 18 months of rehab before my father was well enough to go home. He lived with physical and mental scars (literally}. The damage to the brain (scaring) caused several strokes and eventually dementia and NPH. He was offered the paperwork for a silver (usually turned down) sta,r but he told them he only wanted to go home. His war from within was felt as I had stitches from his outbursts. Vietnam, I was lucky in a high draft number. I kinda took my hits from WW2. I'm sure I am not alone. Not everyone came back to parades and women in the streets. For many of those 34th and 36th the war didn't end. Clark was an SOB. Has any General other than Clark been known to sacrifice 1700 men for and ego?
I would say it’s Admiral Ernest King. His anti-British stance as well as ignoring their advice on the convoy system lead many US merchant sailors to their deaths.
When he was a Lt, Admiral King was servery reprimanded by Admiral McVay, whose son later commanded the USS Indianapolis, who King ordered Court Martial for "hazarding his command".
Both King and Clark were prima donnas and shirked responsibilities for men's lives. Patton was a big prima donna, and was also vain glorious, but at least he fought to win the war, not lose it. WWI vets never forgot McArthur burning Hooverville.
@@rogerusa9696 I wouldn’t say King was a glory hound, more of a spiteful man with anti-British views that conflicted with his job. Problem is those attitudes cost so many sailors their lives unnecessarily and poor excuses like “we didn’t have enough ships” showed he didn’t really try to protect those convoys. British had same issue of not enough ships but still got it done.
@@mikereger1186 I disagree. Most WW1 generals were in a league of their own, and those two idiots in particular were in another league of their own compared to even the rest of the WW1 generals.
@@craniusdominus8234 those two clowns had years to gain a solid reputation for incompetence... However, I would suggest a closer examination of Patton at Metz, Aachen and the Hurtgen Forest to understand his limitations, and what happens when a cavalryman meets fortified positions. He seems to have run out of ideas rather quickly, and frontal assaults cost an awful lot of lives - just like the epic pair cited.
@@mikereger1186 conrad and Luigi oh my god don't mention them I despise them lol ... even in the great war with all that carnage and no shortage of seemingly incompetent leaders those two stand out and not for anything positive, you'd be inclined to think they wanted to kill their own men off, I'm not sure I would put even Clark on their level
It's great that you find these subject matter experts to participate. Keep up the awesome work. Some day you can do a video on why Generaloberst Hoth is overshadowed by "Father of the Panzerwaffe" Guderian....
He was equally despised by the British in Italy. Nothing would have pleased 15th Army Group HQ more than his removal. Had he been a British General under Alexander he would have been court martialed.
Actually I am not an expert about American military history. So I don’t want to judge on that particular topic. But It is very easy to name the most hated German General of WW2. That is for sure Ferdinand Schörner ( Der blutige Ferdinand/ the bloody Ferdinand).
@@aleksaradojicic8114 Handling of alleged „deserters“. He was sentenced by the Soviets to the obligatory 25 year’s imprisonment. He returned to eastern Germany in 1954 ( released as a member of the last German POW detachment to return to Germany ). The East Germans kept him for about one year in their custody. After that he went to West Germany. But he was that much hated by the ordinary former German Soldiers and their families, that he was charged with manslaughter ( for having executed many German Soldiers for alleged desertion), and sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment for that.
Well, let’s put it this way: the history professors at The Citadel didn’t have anything nice to say about him. And he was laid to rest there, for what it’s worth. That said, that may be one of the many mythical „everything would have been great, had there not been General XYZ“ narratives the US military has, so thank you for that very informative video!
He was head shed at the Citadel for a while wasn't he? I've mentioned Alan Whicker elsewhere and one of the interesting things about his memoir is that as a member of the British Army film unit he encountered Clark and retinue on the road to Rome and then years later interviewed him when he was at the Citadel. Whicker asked Clark if he had any regrets about Rome and he remained convinced that he was in the right.
When I was in high school our geometry teacher had Avalon Hill board games set up in his office. We used to play before and after school. He brought in Anzio to play once. He and one of the guys started but both wound up quitting the game. It was a continual stalemate and got boring.
@@davidcox3076 "Blitzkrieg" was my first AH game; my other favorites were "Tobruk", "Panzer Leader" and "Ceasar's Legions". A good buddy had a copy of "Squad Leader".
@@douglasstrother6584 wargaming is a great hobby and shows you just what Clark and other generals were up against in reality. Avalon Hill games were generally pretty good, Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader was a favorite, along with Tobruk and Arab-Isreali Wars. GMT Games has some good stuff these days.
My Father was a sniper with Co.F 2nd Bat. 351st Reg. 88th Inf. Div. and he hated Clark’s guts. He said that instead of drawing a noose around Kesselring’s 10th Army at Sante Maria Infante, he sought the glory of capturing Rome costing 1000s of unneeded casualties there and at Monte Cassino.
@hognoxious Stillwell was abusive to his troops and forced men with malaria, typhus and dysentery to return to Mytikanaa to fight the Japanese again. Was firm believer nepotism by promoting his son on his staff ahead of more qualified officers. And more...
Very interesting, and a good effort for doing it all in English. My one slight niggle concerns the tiny map. It was impossible to see: even on a very large screen.
Mark Clark wins! He squandered his troops, and opportunities to help capture an entire German Army by conveniently misinterpreting orders so he could run to Rome in search of Glory. The others were inept in other ways, but did not intentionally sacrifice lives for personal glory. (that I am aware of)
I had been in Dresden last week and it is a very good exhibition - at least the Paratrooper one cause the usual one is a bit of everything and nothing and quite tough to go through even though all exhibition objects have an english description too even though the german and english ones are quite often pretty small especially in vitrine areas. Paratrooper exhibition is a must, the usual exhibition has some interesting and unique pieces but you have too look for those and find such like a letter about the order of 35 million pervitin dragees in 1939 for 1940 campaign. But such are lucky finds cause you have to read a lot to find such letter. Also there was another letter for a right hand of Göring with jewish anchestory who had to fight for his life even late 1944 to get rid of the SS hunt and after a sterilisation sugery. Tiny jewels and tough to find cause there might be a lot more I might have missed after spending several hours from the 15th century onwards digging into artefacts and amour over even german navy pieces. The great war was not covered that well at all to be honest and do not drive there for such topic cause you might be pretty disappointed. The big issue is the huge amount of exhibition pieces across so many centuries and the kind how they put pieces together . Hard to find a red / dotted line between the pieces but also suprising finds like a V2 from the bottom to the top or big caliber shell from the big gustav or however it was called, the big gun used at Sebastopol where only 2 had been build. If you look at the shell and imagine the extraordinary huge railway gun then the V2 rocket looks quite different and usefull cause the shell of such gun was not that big compared to the propellant that was needed. WW2 exhibition is great - but be aware no tanks and close to no guns except 20 mm FLAK or so, but the go to exhibition is that paratrooper one for sure. Lot of effort and care for details. To watch the whole museum you can spend 2 days, cause 1 day was too less for us.
Clark and Stilwell: tough call there. Had Clark thought more in terms of winning the campaign and not his own ego, he might (BIG might) have realized that cutting off the German retreat would've got him some lasting fame and assuaged his jealousy -no other word to describe it; of the Overlord planners
Military historian Max Hastings had once written that the negative side of the Allied Command was the competition between Brooke, Marshall, Nimitz and Ernst J. King over policy, Bradley and Eisenhower over strategy, Eisenhower and Montgomery over resources and Richard O'Connor and Patton over aggression. But the ugly side was the debate between Percival and MacArthur over incompetence, MacArthur, Halsey, Patton and Clark over dramatics and shockingly MacArthur and Clark over foolishness. Stillwell surprisingly doesn't find a mention, neither in dramatics nor incompetence.
My Dad was in McArthur's army. He hated McArthur. Years later some folks gave Dad the book "American Caesar." He said that might burn the book. I mentioned that to a guy I worked with. His father was also in McArthur's army and he told his dad what my Dad said. He sent back the message "tell the man to burn the book." The other man was a Federal Judge.
Stillwell was lucky few US troops were under his command. No one checked the survivors of the Chinese forces under his command. The US force Chiang to accept him as Chief of the General Staff of the National Chinese Army. After using Chaing's last mobile troops (essentially what he used to stop Japanese offensives) to save the Brits in Burma. This destroyed the units. Stillwell than marched out with the survivors to India, out of command for a fairly long period of time acting more as a corps commander than the Chief of Staff of an Army.. Chiang commented that if was a Chinese officer that he would have him shot for dereliction of duty.
Which makes him in part for the triumph of the Communist Chinese Army after the Japanese surrendered, when it evolved into a struggle between Kai Cheks' Nationalists and Mao's Communist Army. The Nationalists didn't have enough soldiers left to fight properly, in no small part due to Stilwell's careless wastage of them outside of the decisive theater of battle. We are still suffering the consequences of Stilwell's terrible command.🤔😢
@@jacqueslefave4296 No, Stillwell was gone but the animosity between him and Chiang lingered on. It was abetted by the left lean in the State Department and the anti-Chiang mood in the OSS in China. The problem was so bad that some supplies actually were sent to the Communists. After the war, it was worse with arms and ammunition embargoed. The last embargo was finally terminated shortly before the Nationalists fell in 1949. One stark example was the Nationalist request for 7.92mm German ammunition captured to be shipped to China (most of the army there used weapons in that caliber). The request was denied and the captured ammo dumped the Baltic. There are many other issues but that alone is one of the worst.
@@arthurmosel808 There were some highly placed actual Communists in the State Dept at the time as well. Senator McCarthy was crude, ham-handed, and painted with too wide a brush, but on the whole, he was correct. I also think that the decision to "do Europe first" had it's merits but had a lot to do with us losing China. Madam Chaing hated Churchill for that reason. I also think that the horrors of the Blitz in London swayed public opinion, the horrors in China were arguably worse, but not covered on radio by Edward R. Murrow and also covered on the newsreels visually, but China was not. Finally, Churchill's appeal to "preserve Christian Civilization" had a powerful effect, but has long since been abandoned by the Europeans, they have adopted the German philosophy of positivism, in which we are free to construct our own moral universe, shared almost completely by the western Europeans, not so much by the Eastern Europeans, largely by the British, and the American left, parts of the center, but not by the Right, unless you include the libertarians among them. It's going to be tough, because we have to face a struggle with the CCP while combatting the left and the false brethren of the RINO's.😨
@@jacqueslefave4296 I avoided details of how Red the State Department and parts of the OSS were. One of my favorite laugh (but not because it is funny) is that Senator McCarthy somehow turned into the House UnAmerican Activity Committee. He didn't serve on the committee, those were Representatives, it was a committee of the House of Representatives, not a joint committee of Congress. McCarthy was used by the left to discredit the committee due to his own behavior and history. A trove of classified US intelligence intercepts of communications with the Soviets from some of the left's so called "innocents" was released during the brief period of openness before the Putin era began. It was released in book form, the Verona Report is the name if I remember correctly (I have stored somewhere). The communists made a lot of valuable recruits during the Trust Operation during the late 20s and early 30s. That operation gave the Soviets access to funds and both legal and illegally obtained technology; as well as the recruitment opportunities.
@@arthurmosel808 The times may have verged on paranoia about Communism at the time, but keep in mind that people were understandingly jittery about betrayal, the transfer of nuclear secrets to the Soviets by the Rosenbergs, and later the Fusion bomb by Klaus Fuchs, first to the Soviets and later the Mainland CCP, as well as the revelations of Whittaker Chambers about Alger Hiss and his spy ring, had the American people in a state of frenzy about betrayal. Still, we had about a year and a half of a monopoly on the fission bomb, and Truman could have bullied Stalin out of Eastern Europe, at least. We know now that they were in a wild panic during that period. But since the Civil War at least, America has been TERRIBLE at managing its foreign policy. On more lesser known but key sources on this period is "Colonel House's Diaries" it is out of print but I'm sure that there are plenty of used copies out there. It details a suspicious continuation of atom bomb research directly from the Manhattan Project to the Soviet Union aboard lend lease aid planes sent to them via routine air cargo flights at the time.😬
Stillwell is still the worst. Sure, Clark was incompetent and placed his own advancement ahead of the welfare of his men, which should have gotten him not only removed from command, but dismissed from service. But Stillwell's odious personality was actually undermining the war effort. Further, Stillwell's incompetence derailed an entire campaign in Burma. Both disastrous, but Stillwell was absolutely toxic.
@David Erickson I tried linking an article and a video but apparently the channel filters said, "no". There is a video on this channel about Stilwell and if you google "Stilwell worst general", you should see several articles about him.
My Grandfather said he didn't like Patton, but did not go into so much detail. He did say he liked serving under Alexander Patch. He did not serve directly under Patton, but a lot of G.I. scuttlebutt probably talked trash about him. He seems to have been an effective, if eccentric general.
I could be wrong about this, but I recall that in reading the book The Ultra Secret, General Clark got up and walked out of the briefing long before it was finished. Since we are talking about Ultra, there were only a few officers from each command that were allowed to be in on the secret. The term was called _"bigoted."_ Clark wanted nothing to do with Ultra. Generals such as Patton used Ultra to it's fullest. Clark never used it at all. Could have saved countless lives and would have shortened the war in Italy.
It is a toss up, but Clark takes the prize. He was more interested in grabbing glory than in the wellbeing of his men or the success of the campaign. The British General Alexander knew very well, but inter allied political relations prevailed.
Operation Shingle was the name given to the Anzio landings. It was spilt into 3 distinct groups, "Peter" Force landed in the north and was made up of the British 1st Infantry Division with the 46th Royal Tank Regiment, 2 Battalions of Commandos (No.2 and 43) with 3 Field Ambulances from the Royal Army Medical Corps. Next was Ranger Group who were to take Anzio its self, with the 6615th Ranger Force (1st, 3rd and 4th Ranger Battalions with the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion) with the 83rd Chemical Mortar Battalion and 2 Evacuation Hospital's (the 93rd and 95th). "X-Ray" Force landed south east and was the 3rd U.S. Infantry Division (Major General Truscott), ranforced by 10th Engineer Battalion, 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion, 751st Tank Battalion, 441st AAA Automatic Weapons Battalion, Battery B, 36th Field Artillery Regiment (155mm Gun)(Motorized), 69th Armoured Field Artillery Battalion, 84th Chemical Battalion (Motorized) and the remainder of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. By midnight the Allies had 36,000 and 3,200 landed, with 13 KIA and 97 wounded. Lucas ordered the advance inland halted by the British 1st Division at 2 miles and and the U.S. 3rd Division after 3 miles, even the Italian resistance had offered to guide the 3rd Division to the vital Alban Hills. Within 2 days the Germans had 40,000 men surrounding the bridgehead, and 2 days later the Germans had the 4th Parachute Division with the 3rd Panzer Grenadier Division in front of the very Albon Hills that Lucas had ignored, and the Hermann Göring Panzer Division. On the 25th of January command of the defence was handed to the German 14th Army under Von Mackensen. Elements of eight German divisions were employed in the defence line around the beachhead, and five more divisions were on their way to the Anzio area. When the breakout at Anzio finally happened Clark decided to go for the Glory of Liberating Rome instead of cutting off Route 6 for the German 10th Army and trapping most of their 14th Army, with along with linking up with the elements of the British 8th Army on Route 5 would have caused the end of 300,000 German troops in the defence of Italy. After heavy fighting had taken place to capture the port town of Ortona at the same time as the Anzio landings by the Canadian 1st Infantry Division, which was to distract the German 10th Army (which it did). Route 6 was supposed to have been cut but the Anzio landings. But after the absolute failure of the Anzio landings under the command of Major General John P. Lucas (almost as moronic as Clark), why Lucian K. Truscott wasn't in command shows that Clark was a complete moron. In fact it took a direct order from General Alexander to replace Lucas with Truscott 6 days after he was ordered to on the 2nd of February. A second operation was launched after the 2nd Polish Corps under Lieutenant General Władysław Anders took the Abbey and Monte Cassino with the help of the British 78th Infantry Division on the 17th May, which allowed the French Expeditionary Corps, which is a joke to call them French considering there was only 1 "French" very understrength Division made up of Legionaries and a few actual Frenchmen, the rest of the French Expeditionary Corps was made up of the 2nd Moroccan Infantry Division, 3rd Algerian Infantry Division and 4th Moroccan Infantry Division's which were pressed Divisions. On the 23rd of May, after the British 8th Army under Lieutenant-General Sir Oliver Leese, sent the 1st Canadian Corps under Lieutenant-General E. L. M. Burns consisting of the 1st Canadian Infantry Division, 2nd New Zealand Division (Lieutenant-General Bernard Freyberg), 5th Canadian Armoured Division, had broken out at Ortona and reached and secured Pescara. From Pescara the 3rd Greek Mountain Brigade, the British 21st Tank Brigade from the 1st Canadian Corps and the British 10th Corps with the 10th Indian Infantry (mountain) Division, British 9th Armoured Brigade to secure Route 5. With the plan that General Sir Harold Alexander commander of the 15th Army Group (Clark's superior in every way), was to link up with the 5 Divisions that broke out of Anzio. Clark even used Lieutenant-General Sidney Kirkman's British 13th Corps made up of the British 1st Infantry Division, British 6th Armoured Division and the 8th Indian Mountain Infantry Division as the covering force while he used 5 U.S. Divisions and elements of the French Expeditionary Corps to advance to Rome. After the collapse of the Gothic Line and his vanity being his driving force to allow the escape of the German Army's up Route 6, General Mark Clark has the blood of every Allied casualty from Cassino to the end of the War in Italy.
I find the “ prestige” of capturing Rome interesting. Correct me if I’m wrong but hadn’t Italy already technically surrendered, was a co-beligerant, Mussolini was deposed and imprisoned, and Rome wasn’t really defended by the Germans. Rome was already sort of liberated, the US just got to drive in there and enjoy some good wine
Its very easy to say that now but at the time you can imagine the situation on the ground would be much more confused and fluid, also the capture of Rome (undamaged) was as highly significant as the capture of Paris, both highly symbolic and of immeasurable cultural significance, future generations are thankful that these cities weren't leveled as others were.
@@SirAntoniousBlock I’m sure it was and I’m sure that Clark felt like it would be prestigious to be associated with liberating Rome from “occupation”. However the Allies could have bombed Rome while they were still a belligerent but chose not to. It could be because nothing of industrial or military importance there and to preserve the ancient archit
@@TheBigSleazy I don't think Clark was especially unique amongst even US commanders, we all know about Patton but even he can't hold a candle to the megalomania arrogance hatred and rivalry of admiral King and gen McArthur lol. It didn't save Caen or Dresden and other cities of historical significance, I'm grateful that Rome was saved.
@@TheBigSleazy I was just surprised that the boys decided too pick on Clark, there were many mad bad or incompetent commanders at all levels in all forces.
Actually, I took care of Eisenhower's cryptographer from the signal corp. Clark wanted to withdraw from Anzio. Eisenhower told him to "stay put" he had to stay and fight. This was 20yrs ago, I always asked old vets what they did during the war and this gentleman gave me this pearl!
My great great uncle is Troy H. Middleton who was a US general during WW2, I love WW1 and WW2, funnily enough, my birthday is a significant event in WW2 and it is coming up, it is in the liberation of France
I didn't think I know enough about enough American generals in that war to offer an opinion, but based on what I had read of Clark's performance I'm relieved to learn U.S. soldiers didn't have anyone of whom they thought worse.
My uncle, Edward Leonard, was an infantryman in an armored reconnaissance unit (I believe it was the 119th or 115th Cavalry from New Jersey) fighting under Mark Clark and was part of the forces that landed at Anzio, only to become bogged down on the beach because of the failure of command to advance inland quickly and keep opposition forces off balance.
"Beetle" Smith was Ike's Chief of Staff. If he ever commanded troops. it was during the interwar period. Staff officers don't usually rate much notice, let alone hatred, by the troops.
@@richardcall9509 you don't have to command troops to be disliked. As Ike's chief of staff, any general or admiral who wished to speak with Ike had to go through Smith. I read many accounts of senior officers disliking Smith and in fact some actually detested him. Patton was one of those generals, but there were many others. They said that Smith just had a wretched personality. But I'm sure if he ever commanded troops they would have hated him, too.
@@richardcall9509 Yeah, quite common feeling towards the Chief of Staff to any higher level commander. The Chief is usually the one who plays “the bad guy” in passing out unpopular orders and commands.
I am a Marine Corps Vietnam combat vet and a retired Army Officer (LTC). West Point coughs out those officers who believe in mission, mission, mission and it does not matter who gets killed and how valid the mission may be. The best officers are Marine Mustangs (former enlisted). They are not going to get killed for no reason but are going to do their damn best to do it within reason.
I think the hate for Clark is misplaced. Very few people look at things from his perspective. He was a WW1 veteran and he saw the fighting in Italy as another WW1. Further he (correctly) thought that WW2 would never end as a result of the armies in Italy pushing North. They would never cross the Alps. So the only goal of the troops in Italy was to keep the German troops there and prevent them from retreating and being placed on defensive lines on the Western or Eastern front. So Clark had the goal of just keeping as many of his troops in Italy alive as he could so long as they kept the German troops in their positions. Pushing North to the Alps would do nothing to end the war faster. Then lastly, of note on the moving on Rome. Many people say he did this for "his glory". That doesn't make sense. Clark is one of the few generals of a high enough rank to know that D-Day was happening the very next day. He would know he was not going to get "glory from taking Rome. The actual reason he took Rome rather then try to surround some of the German troops was because first the idea that they were going to easily surround the German troops is false. Maybe they would surround some of the Germans maybe not. But trying to do so would cost lives and as stated above that was one of his goals to try to keep low. And then secondly had Clark tried to surround the German units and if he succeeded in doing so or not that could have caused the new battle line between the allied and German troops to be going either trough or close to Rome. Thus leading to WW2 combat within or close to Rome causing a large amount of civilian and military deaths through such urban combat. People forget that it had been a allied goal to take Rome much earlier then they did. So Clark taking Rome to prevent deaths and complete and goal does actually make sense and is why he was not punished for the decision he made. It was not a guarantee that he would have surrounded the German troops and even if he did what does that do? There is still fighting in Italy and maybe that fighting is happening close to or within Rome itself. That could have been a worse result. SO I think Clark taking the safe decision in taking Rome then was actually the correct move for him to make. Because no matter what there is still going to be fighting happening in Italy and no matter what the war is not ending through the allied armies in Italy pushing North.
@A Velsen Patton didn't blame his troops when defeated, every vet I meant who served under Patton didn't say their unit they thumped their chest and said I served with Patton, find a vet that does that for Clark or Bradley
Clark blamed his men if plans didn't work such as too many Indians in the British army under his command. He wasted men just like WW1 if wasn't for friends in high places would have been shit canned
@A Velsen First, Normandy was very far from Montgomery's plan. It was a joint effort by many people by Montgomery was far from that list of the people planning out the invasion. If one person were to be credited with the invasion plan it would be Bertram Ramsay. Second, the Normandy plan had already ended by the time Patton was given control of the US 3rd army in Normandy. When Patton was put in control a new plan was put in place for him to break through along the Western end of the German line and then out flank the Germans which he did resulting in the Falaise pocket. And of course there would be more deaths under Patton then there were under Clarke. That is just stupid to say. Patton was fighting on the important front in a constantly moving front. Clarke was fighting on a front that had no goal in it but to occupy German troops from fighting elsewhere.
@@demonprinces17 For WW2 casualties, no he did not waste men. As for Indians he didn't have any under his command of the US 5th army (which is when his criticisms are laid). He was later given control of the US 15th Army group so he had control of the US 5th army and British 8th army and there he had Indians and many other nations troops under his command at that point. At that point the allies were basically never trying to push North. They would only push North to keep the Germans from taking their troops out of Italy and putting them on the Western or Eastern fronts. So those attacks at that point did unfortunately need to happen but were happening as a result of a grander global strategic strategy.
@A Velsen You have a lot of hate for Patton that is very misplaced in a post not even about Patton. In Sicily Patton was given the order to take Palermo by British General Alexander after Montgomery was stopped on the road to Messina. Saying the Germans escaped Africa because of Patton is just dumb man. He was a corp commander at the time. There were many people higher ranked then him giving him orders there. I never said the break out at Normandy was Patton's idea. It was not Montgomery's plan to get stopped at Caen. The plan was for the British to take Caen on the first day of the landings. But the Germans had gotten their armored divisions there in time to stop that. They prevented the British from taking Caen. This lead to the plan for Patton to push out from the West which then caused the Germans to move their armored divisions out of Caen allowing the British to take it. The Germans moved their armored divisions out of Caen to try to cut off Patton's 3rd army which they failed to do thus resulting in Patton out flanking them and forcing them to retreat and be surrounded. And Patton's 3rd Army was the one that actually stopped the Germans attack during the battle of the Bulge unlike Montgomery's claim that he later had to apologize for that he stopped it. Patton was also not planning attacks into German as he was a army commander. That was the job of his army group commander Bradly and Eisenhower. The attacks along the front into Germany were the ones that ended up allowing the allies into Germany again unlike the failed plan for Market Garden under Montgomery's watch.
Because he had "tried" to follow orders. He sent one Div to capture the primary objective, Highway 6 & four divs to capture Rome the secondary objective. Also this was a few months b4 his "competence" got him promoted. The consequences were not his problem for long.
I can see how the vets from Anzio didn't like Gen Clark. One of my cousins was in that battle which I studied while a LTC in Air War College. The problem was Clark's reluctance to expand the depth of the beach head which compromised our ability to conduct offensive operations. You might also consider ADMs Fletcher and Ghormley, the commanders at Guadalcanal. I spoke with a couple of marines who fought there who stated they were abandoned with no naval support, no food/water/ ammunition because the Admirals feared a Japanese air attack which never happened.
@ Andrew: Yes, that's quite correct. Field Marshal Albert Kesselring's defense of the Italian peninsulaisstill taught at military and staff colleges today, as an example of how to carry out a fighting withdrawal while inflicting the greatest possible casualties and difficulties upon the enemy as possible. Some historians rate him as one of the top five generals on the German side during that war.
@@mpetersen6 - Yes, but in his defense (no pun intended!) he recognized the opportunity and made good use of it. If I'm not mistaken, his defensive retreat up the Italian boot is still taught at some military academies and staff schools as one example of that type of operation.
Clark was my father's commanding officer in North Africa and in his Signal corp HQ in Italy when the 5th Army liberated Rome on June 5th,1944. He never spoke about Clark probably for good reason.
"Cover" works in English in this context because the smoke does "cover" the movements (c.f. cover your tracks, "covert" from same roots), so it didn't register to me as funny wording. In this case, "conceal" sounds formal, which is probably why you picked up on it being more correct. Cover could probably be swapped for conceal in almost every case and be understood, though it would stand out as a foreign choice in common phrases that always use conceal (like "concealed weapon"). Interesting postscript, Wiktionary says: "Displaced native Middle English thecchen and bethecchen (“to cover”)" and "the original sense of the verb and noun cover was “hide from view” as in its cognate covert." So, there's the callback to the German "decken!"
"Cover" has a very specific meaning when used in a tactical/military context. It refers to something which provides both concealment and as a physical barrier to projectiles. Smoke obviously provides no physical barrier to anything, so it isn't "cover" in this sense at all.
@@chuckschillingvideos To me that's just jargon; it only has a special meaning to people within that circle. To everybody else (the vast majority of the viewers of this video) in a plain-talk discussion of history the distinction is meaningless.
I attended Norwich University, the oldest of the private military colleges in the USA, (founded in 1819) . I graduated in 1987, and many of the University's staff and instructors were veterans of the Second World War.
One of my mentors, was a ranking officer in the European theater, and I had the privilege of talking history with him on many occasions. He despised General Mark Clark, he called him a glory hound. He described him as the worst type of officer you could become. He was willing to see men under his command butchered as well as disobey direct orders all in his never ending pursuit of medals, so called glory, and higher rank and position. My mentor always said it was important for cadets to learn about such officers so they knew what not to do.
Hello Brian, I posted the below in my own post but I am copy pasting it below as it says a lot in reply to what you said here as a defense of the other side of Clark:
I think the hate for Clark is misplaced. Very few people look at things from his perspective. He was a WW1 veteran and he saw the fighting in Italy as another WW1. Further he (correctly) thought that WW2 would never end as a result of the armies in Italy pushing North. They would never cross the Alps. So the only goal of the troops in Italy was to keep the German troops there and prevent them from retreating and being placed on defensive lines on the Western or Eastern front. So Clark had the goal of just keeping as many of his troops in Italy alive as he could so long as they kept the German troops in their positions. Pushing North to the Alps would do nothing to end the war faster.
Then lastly, of note on the moving on Rome. Many people say he did this for "his glory". That doesn't make sense. Clark is one of the few generals of a high enough rank to know that D-Day was happening the very next day. He would know he was not going to get "glory from taking Rome. The actual reason he took Rome rather then try to surround some of the German troops was because first the idea that they were going to easily surround the German troops is false. Maybe they would surround some of the Germans maybe not. But trying to do so would cost lives and as stated above that was one of his goals to try to keep low. And then secondly had Clark tried to surround the German units and if he succeeded in doing so or not that could have caused the new battle line between the allied and German troops to be going either trough or close to Rome. Thus leading to WW2 combat within or close to Rome causing a large amount of civilian and military deaths through such urban combat. People forget that it had been a allied goal to take Rome much earlier then they did. So Clark taking Rome to prevent deaths and complete and goal does actually make sense and is why he was not punished for the decision he made. It was not a guarantee that he would have surrounded the German troops and even if he did what does that do? There is still fighting in Italy and maybe that fighting is happening close to or within Rome itself. That could have been a worse result. SO I think Clark taking the safe decision in taking Rome then was actually the correct move for him to make. Because no matter what there is still going to be fighting happening in Italy and no matter what the war is not ending through the allied armies in Italy pushing North.
@@PhillyPhanVinny WHAT A LOAD OF SHITE 💩💩💩💩💩 !!!!!! If any of what you said was accurate, why did Clark resolutely prevent any other ALLY (British, South African, Indian, Australian, New Zealand, Polish, French, Brazilian, Greek) march through Rome!!!! Clark was a disgrace!! But it is impolite to tell a host of widows tbat their husbands died because of a general's vanity!!!
@@johnegan7622 Why don't people like you don any research before making comments like this. I'll explain why that is such a dumb comment.
When Clark took Rome he was just the commander of the US 5th army not the 15th army group (both the US 5th army and British 8th army). So when he took Rome he was not in command of anything but US troops. Later when he became 15th army group commander the allies had already pushed well past Rome. What was he supposed to do then? Send non-American units many miles backwards so they could march through Rome? that is insane. Even the 15th Army Group commander when Rome was taken British General Alexander would of thought such a idea insane. The Americans were pushing up the Western side of Italy where Rome was so they were right there. To send a non-American division to Rome on a silly parade would me taking divisions off the line on the East coast of Italy and sending them over to Rome. Absolutely no point in doing that.
@@PhillyPhanVinny There is no question that Clark saw Rome as a great prize, not for the Allies but for Fifth Army - a force that he had nurtured since its formation in North Africa - and also for America. The glory that might be bestowed upon him would be welcome, but this should not cloud the fact that Clark recognised how important the capture of Rome, by Americans, would be back home in the US as far as future operations in Italy were concerned, and in giving Fifth Army the credit he believed they were due. Exacerbating this was his suspicion that the British - and Eighth Army in particular - were trying to steal his show whenever possible; and in the days before Montgomery left to take on the Normandy job, there was, in fact, some truth in this.
‘Clark was always very sensitive about the taking of Rome,’ said Alex. ‘I assured Clark that neither I nor Leese wanted the Eighth Army to participate in its capture; we felt it fell naturally into the Fifth Army’s area.’ A few days before the battle began, one of Clark’s periodic paranoias began to develop over the matter. ‘I know factually that there are interests brewing for the Eighth Army to take Rome,’ he vented in his diary, ‘and I might as well let Alexander know now that if he attempts any thing of the kind he will have another all-out battle on his hands; namely, with me.’ Strong words, but at that time, he knew Fifth Army’s role in the battle was due to be secondary - until the Anzio breakout at any rate - with Eight Army’s effort down the Liri Valley expected to be the main push. In other words, he could see that Eighth Army might storm ahead and reach Rome first despite reassurances to the contrary.
Funny enough many here in Australia have more or less the same view of MacArthur, at least those with an interest in history who don't just swallow the continued low level propaganda surrounding the man.
My father served under Clark as a junior officer, and was wounded at Anzio. While he never specifically mentioned Clark by name, he often said he was in more danger from his superior officers than he was from the Germans.
This ""tradition"" continues. My father was in 1st Squad,1st Platoon, Troop B, 91st Reconnaisance Squadron, working for S-2, S-3 at II Corps. They wouldn't say it, but as recon then, they were in contact almost every day. They were proud of doing their job. They were NOT proud of having to serve under Clark. The things I heard about him at the dinner table would make you blush.
My uncles Frank and Ed served at Anzio. Both was wounded only Frank Ed and one other in their unit survived
@@johnhadley7715 I'd love to hear them.
My Grandpa was a T-Patcher: 36th ID, 143d infantry regiment at Anzio and fought against the 1st Fallschirmjäger in the night battle at Velletri. He was shot by a sniper in the Alban Hills and was injured badly enough that he was sent home to recover.
He despised Mark Clark.
A former acquaintance of mine (we now live several hours apart) posted a picture on FB of his great uncle, iirc, getting decorated by Clark himself.
He was in the Texas Division.
According to my junior ROTC instructor, an army colonel and Veteran of Italy in World War II, the 36th Infantry Division curse his name! It was the Rapido River Crossing, indeed!
Russian.German and Brittish..all had the same blood line.....
@@stephensanderson6386 is America their bastard son?
Can attest as part of the 36th ID, Rappido is still remembered to this day.
Don't forget Major General John Dahlquist, the 442nd (and 1-3rd bn) hated him with passion as he was a bad micro manager and worst commander they ever had.
@@prof_kaos9341 i hope not.both uk and especially the states are ripe for civil war..again.
My wife’s Grandfather served with the 36 infantry division in Italy and yes he hated Mark Clark.
As a kid I used to go with my grandfather to an RBL branch which had a number of veterans of one particular battalion that was at Anzio. Whenever the topic came up it always came around to how much they despised Clark.
I resume they were the division forced to make the crossings under well-aimed and continuous 88 fire over a river in full spring flood. My dad said they went down to the crossings and observed the crest was so high you couldn't see the other bank...
My graduate advisor served as an aide to Mark Clark and absolutely loathed the man
I first heard of Mark Clark from a M*A*S*H episode 😁
My. Dad served in the 66th Div. infantry as a first Co. scout. He thought Gen. Clark was wonderful in the battle of the Rhone Valley in 44. Clark kept right on pushing the Germans, so they couldn’t salvage their panzers for spare parts. This doomed their defenses and they had to run off from the Americans leaving their panzers for the French to salvage. The Weremacht relied on salvaging for their spares. They folded and retreated back to Germany.
No other American General kept rolling over German trucks and Armor to this extent!
@@davekoenig9935 You sure you aren’t talking about General Bruce Clarke. I do not believe Mark Clark ever left the Italian Campaign to serve in Northern Europe.
@@davekoenig9935 Wrong General. Your dad would have been serving under General Bruce Clarke.
General Mark Clark never left Italy. He became general in charge of italy after it was taken and
@@geodes6722 The Rhône River empties into the Med. near Marseilles. After D Day, Gen. Clark’s troops invaded the South of France and chased the Germans all the way north, up the Rhone Valley. Germans never got the chance to salvage spare parts off of battle damaged panzers, so no counter attacks, which were their stock in trade. Frogs got all those engines, transmissions, excetera!
So, can we have a moment of appreciation for Dr. Pahl? He looked a bit frustrated at times due to the language barrier, wanted to tell us more, but couldn't find the right words. Your words were more than correct, Comrade and you told us about an amazing piece of history!
Well done Men.
Having done more reading about the Eastern Front, I was not aware that Hitler took over so much calling so many decisions over his Generals....poor Gen Paulus. He had paperwork smarts, but couldnt a military decision to save the troops or himself. Such a shame. No way did he belong in the field.
@@truthbtold2910 Well, Grofaz was indeed called "that little corporal". I like how Bernhard and his fellow scholars are telling us, that the story is a bit more complex and it wasn't Hitler alone who was that one silly sausage, but the generals themselves screwed up just as badly. And no, Germany losing the war is not a shame, but a pretty okay thing. Although that (again!) is debatable, as there are countries which would have benefited from their victory. Buuut that's heresy territory- not good for yt comment section :D
I'd love a reality check video about the convoluted mess that Nazi administration was to debunk the 200% Ordnung myth, but it's far beyond the scope of military history. The army part will have to suffice.
@@truthbtold2910 iirc one of the other Generals was telling Paulus unofficially to "ignore Hitler, smash his radios and break out." I can't remember who.. maybe Zeitzler(?)
It took me a few videos to learn how to "hear" your accent, but it's been very much worth the effort! I've read about and wargamed WW2 actions for far too many years, and stumbled over German words, especially equipment designations, of thirty or forty letters. I have very much enjoyed not only your take on historical events from a viewpoint that isn't American-centric, but especially hearing a native German-speaker breeze through words that have left me cold for decades. These videos are a cut above the RUclips average and I thank you very much for producing them, and hope you're able to keep going for as long as you find it enjoyable.
thank you!
EXACTLY my situation! Especially the breezing through words part
The key to getting the hang of those frankenwords is to first understand that is what they are. German allows for any number of nouns, when written, to be strung together end-to-end into a single word. When spoken, however, it's a string of individual words just like any other sentence. Once you get the hang of what the individual words are, it becomes much easier to figure out where to put the breaks and unpack the whole thing and it gets a lot less intimidating.
Thanks,@@nathanrandall7003. I understand the concept; nashorn (nose horn) = rhinoceros. It's the execution I have issues with. I understand the concept of open heart surgery, too. Any volunteers to be my first patient? ;-D
@@nathanrandall7003 Well explained! We Germans love to build words as long as a Pythons!😂 And yes, we speak a kind of pidgin english. But listen to a Scotsman (I like them!) and find out which language is spoken.😂😇
Damn you know your attack is bad when the enemy thinks that your main assault was just reconnaissance.
Ha ha. I thought of Clark immediately. I played music for two nights at an annual gathering of American Anzio veterans…they were not fans of Clark.
Churchill was responsible for Anzio, not Clark. Sounds like somebody was very ill-informed.
He was my immediate guess as well😎
@@formwiz7096
Sure, he was commander on the ground...
And he HAS a commitment to those under his command.
@@formwiz7096 The issue was about the strategic decision to land at Anzio. It was the failure of command after the invasion, including the entire campaign in Italy.
@@kenh5317 No. If you're talking about Clark, it was the decision to attack across the Rapido. Anzio was Churchill's baby. Read a book.
Markus Clarkus, the derisive nickname he earned for his obsession with taking Rome, will always make me laugh.
Bigus Dickus in fact..
The Texas Division veterans would gladly give their opinions of Clark’s, just expect many expletives in the description of him
Alternatively, they could have given the Germans plenty of time to prepare properly if they had stayed waiting on the line of the Rapido. Mountains give you no good options.
I heard post war Clark never officially visited Texas and was never invited to reunions etc. And this scuttled his planned political career. How much easier could the campaign have been with even just 30k German PoWs with Rome. Or if Clark hadn't told Anzio's Lucas to be cautious.
@@prof_kaos9341 36th ID, my dad was from Conn (not texas) and had many new england pals in his anti-tank squad. he was not a fan of mark clark. And either was walter huston the famous film director. he made an award winning film about the battle to capture 'San Peitro'. clark was not liked over his bad decision to attack over the Rapido River. many unnecessary casualties.
Didn’t 42nd Regimental Combat Team rescue The 36th?
@@lawrencemay8671 the rapido river crossing devistated the personel of the 36th so much so they had to be taken out of the line for replacements and R & R.
My great uncle, who served in the 36th, said that Clarke had the ego of Patton without the success. He derided Clarke as incompetent and over confident. As to who is most hated, I think it’s a matter of the man on the ground following orders and their perspective
Patton didn't have much success either.
@@turdferguson3803 And what delusional drug are you taking?
@@billdavis2788 A drug called reality. I know Patton fans hate facts but Patton made a name for himself by being an obnoxious bafoon, not by doing anything actually significant.
@@turdferguson3803 Rescuing the 101st at Bastogne?
@@GUYCLIP Bastogne would have been relieved no matter who was leading the Third Army, the Germans were out of fuel and once weather had cleared the allies had completely uncontested air superiority.
5:34 Bernhard starts smiling when he hears about the "Bernhard Line"
;)
A defensive line named after you. You must be proud
@@zainmudassir2964 Maybe he was named after the "Bernhard Line". No disrespect intended.
I've been to walk the ground of the Cassino offensive, read the books etc. To throw the enormous sacrifice away and let the Axis retreat safely to the next defensive line - that's professionally unforgiveable. To do it for a photo op is barely human.
It's rather ironic that two very poor English speakers very likely Germans.
Gen clark had a job to do and it was a horrorable job he did his duty and was always troubled by his decissions but his duty was to win and he facilitated the victorys. Men die in war and all generals are never regarded as pals by the troops who have to carry out the personal battles planned by generals.
@@Lisahough4738 Hahaha you're delusional
My father was a tactical reconnaissance Spitfire pilot in Italy. His squadron was attached to the US 15th air force. In his flying logbook he has an entry for a reconn flight in a Fairchild Argus, the second person onboard was Mark Clark.
Mark Clark also has a bad name in New Zealand for wasting troops at Cassino and letting the 10th Army escape.
He hurt American forces as well, by taking Rome immediately. His OWN countrymen.
@Terry McConville Hear, hear, Terry!
While Clark deserves some pounding the Italian camaign was a Britsh hatched plan and Monty did no better as a matter of fact they moved him probably to save face.Later using the excuse he was helping to plan Normandy.This was Winston's soft underbelly theory as he dragged his feet on OVERLORD saying the beaches woul run red with/from British/American soldiers.Of course after it's initial success Winston,Brooke and Leigh Mallorey were like "HEAR-HEAR"
@@bigwoody4704 bullshit. No other general had the nous to command the ground forces for Overlord. There was great satisfaction in Italy when Clarkewas kicked upstairs and Truscott ( a first class General) took over 5th Army. It was a shame he wasn’t given the DRAGOON sideshow.
Not bullshit reading Descision in Normand right now.There were huge meetings with hundreds of planners Admiral Ramsay planned a lot more of the landings.Monty was put there for political consideration only.His actions were waning quickly after the desert where he couldn't lose.He won with the weight of allied advantages.And Clark made alot of mistakes also and had an ego to match Monty's.
The Dragoon Operation was a huge success,Churchill had no business in a council of war.He didn't want it launched because of his own cock ups in Italy.Both Stalin and Roosevelt were tired of Winston henpecking.The whole south of France along the med was grabbed/liberated(unlike Italy) with very little losses.And the operation there concluded a month ahead of time.Churchill couldn't stand the fact the GIs were advancing with out him.Devers 6th Army group including General Patch's 7th Army and free French 1st Army went in.Remember the French? - they wanted their country back. So they happily went in with the GIs
Excellent in depth explanation of events. The English was perfectly sufficient and adds a unique perspective.
I've seen interviews with Canada Veterans who were told to halt there advance just 20+ something miles away from Rome for the Americans to take the Glory. Just two days later would be D Day and these men were called the "D Day Dodgers" witch was in many ways an insult considering the amount of action in Italy the men went through, the Allied soldiers in Italy felt that their sacrifices were being ignored after the invasion of Normandy, and a "D-Day Dodger" a reference to someone who was supposedly avoiding real combat by serving in Italy, whereas the reality was anything but. 🇨🇦🇨🇦
That's a good point, well made. The Canadian 2nd Armoured Brigade, which was one of the best tank units fighting in Italy, was talked about in the military TV series "Greatest Tank Battles" and those veterans describe how they were held back so the American units could ride through Rome first and claim all the glory. As an American soldier, this embarasses me greatly.
There are anecdotal accounts of German soldiers who considered the fighting in Italy as intense as that on the eastern front, particularly at Anzio.
I do NOT believe you
Clark is still hated here in Texas.
The 36th ID was the Texas National Guard division. It is said that after the Rapido, the characteristic Texas accent was seldom heard in its ranks.
Wanted, dead or alive.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer I remember reading about that attack in a Time-life series of books , almost brought me to tears ....... and i am from England
Same could be said of General John Dahlquist and debacle around the lost battalion(s) during the Vosge campaign
@@jeffreyallen3461 doesn't live in the memory of Texans quite as large as the Rapido
Clarke was the wrong man in definitely the wrong place. The hideous terrain meant any offensive campaign from the southern tip of Italy would be a nightmare. Europe’s “soft underbelly” was a flawed concept from the beginning. Clarke’s lack of tactical and strategic acumen compounded the situation.
Fighting through urban settings in the mountains: *literally the hardest combat task*
Churchill: “it’s free real estate!”
The Germans: “Are you sure about that?”
There's a misapprehension about the purpose of the Italy campaign which is partly caused by the "soft underbelly" maxim. Churchill might have had hopes of attacking Germany from the South, ignoring the landings in France. Brooke* did not have any such intention. The primary purpose of the Italian campaign was to get troops from the Western allies in combat with Germany and Italy at a time when the USSR was seriously stretched. Stalin wanted a Western front in 1942. Whether or not it failed didn't matter so much to him. The point was to have the Germans occupied elsewhere.
The invasion of Italy had the aim of knocking Italy out of the war, and then tying down large numbers of German troops who would not be available to fight in Russia or defend France. This was precisely what Brooke wanted. The fact that the fighting in Italy was so brutal and long-lasting meant that in spite of tactical reverses, the strategy was paying off. The Americans were surprised that Kesselring was so determined to hold every foot of ground in Italy. Brooke noted irritably that it was just what they'd told them would happen. It meant that as the war developed in Northern Europe, troops could be diverted from Italy for operations such as the invasion of Southern France (though Churchill again opposed this).
This is why Clark's diversion to Rome was so harmful. The point of the Italian operation was primarily to tie down and write off German military capacity, not to occupy territory.
@@westprog2012 It’s true that Brooke envisioned an eventual cross channel invasion. However, according to his statement at the Trident Conference he thought no direct confrontation in France was possible until 1945 or 46. The Americans thought that he, like most of his British colleagues, was reluctant to confront the Germans in France because of experiences in WW1 and early WW2. Brooke, like Marshall, was bitterly disappointed that Eisenhower was chosen as Supreme Allied Commander thus diluting his influence on future strategy.
@@westprog2012 Not only that but the Italy Campaign for the British was not really about winning the war in Europe but was about effectively clearing the Mediterranian of Enemy shipping and thus facilitating a return of the British presence in South East Asia. It should be noted that the freeing up of shipping caused by the invasion of Italy not only had a dramatic positive impact on supplies to British forces in Burma allowing them to go on the offensive due to the massively shorter supply route but also in allowing the creation of the British Pacific Fleet.
@@jonsouth1545 plus Midwest oil
I had a revelation in Vietnam, I was in Special Forces, we went back into a site we had vectored B52s, Phantoms and Cobras onto, by infiltrating an NVA regiments encampment and placing a signal to allow the bombing to hit the place. After the strikes, we went back in to conduct evaluation, we met opposition and got into a firefight. We bugged out and we’re followed. SOP (standard operating procedure) for small group missions (our group numbered 5) was immediate withdrawal and exfiltration then helicopter extraction, it being accepted that in a small group even 1 wounded soldier meant the group lost all tactical viability. We went through the SOP disengaged, bugged out to an acceptable area for helicopter extraction and radioed in for extraction. Our Commanding Officer countermanded the request (from base some 100 miles away), ordered us to remain in place, left us there the next 30 hours, then choppered in with 26 soldiers. In effect, he left our group out there as bait, hoping to collect some kudos. I never took an order again in Vietnam without thinking of that turd. He never had another posting in Special Forces, he forgot that soldiers, including Senior Non Commissioned Officers have an extensive network which includes every Officer they have ever served with, the word was put out very fast.
Oh yes in our Army it is the Warrant Officers that know the ropes
The broadcaster (and Anzio veteran) Alan Whicker certainly didn't like him very much, in fact in what is a fairly easy going war memoir by a man who'd interviewed all sorts of bad hats his obvious dislike of Clark stands out.
EDIT: The chapter about Clark in the book "Whicker's War" is called "Hitler would have had him shot."
Well he would've err because he was an enemy.
@@SirAntoniousBlock Au contraire, as an "enemy" Clark would be just the sort of general Hitler appreciated.
@@stamfordly6463 So you disagree with Whicker?
Hitler generally (no pun intended) didn't have under-performing generals executed like Stalin, just demoted or sacked like in the Western allied armies HC.
@@SirAntoniousBlock Do you miss the point deliberately or are you just thick?
@@stamfordly6463 ah yes, when you're so inarticulate and have no answer you resort to insulting random people on the internet?
Blocked.
This video might break RUclips...
My Grandfather served in Italy with the 5th Rece Corp within the 5th Inf Div ..... he had nothing but an active dislike for the man, the only pay back was Mark Clark’s “ triumph into Rome” was spoilt by D Day so the news largely ignored him and his audience with the Pope was largely missed.
No side to Clark.
My family had a relation that was Mark Clark”s nanny..... my Grandfather had views on her efficiency in keeping the child from harm as well, as he suffered the General’s strategy in that campaign.
“ Why couldn’t she have dropped him on his head” ,was how he used to put it.
I guess he had his reasons ......Anzio for starters.
Salute to your Grandfather. My Dad was a veteran of the Normandy to Germany theatre. He always said he was glad he didn't have to fight in Italy...doubly glad that he didn't have fight in the Pacific theater!
Being 5th Inf Div those fellas got about, if the bombs had not been dropped his Div would have likely gone to the Far East.... something no one was happy with, “they had done their bit “was the thought of the time... he had been at the liberation of KZ camp at Bergan.... he had seen enough.
The NZ div at Casino didn't like him either. Dad cetainly didn't.
General Clark didn't care one bit for the soldiers. Salute to my Kiwi brothers from Aussie.
@@scottyfox6376 I think what endeared him to Kiwis was an overheard remark about stopping the offensive once the casualty count got to 1000. At the time, Kiwis were conducting it.
@@davidprosser7278 Alternatively, the orders could have been 'Keep going till you take it'. Without taking taking Monte Cassino, the Italian campaign stalls ...
Freyburg, a far better General, certainly didn't like Clarke.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot Yes, if Face Book existed in 1944, Clark would have a pretty short friends list.
You should read about what the Canadian 1 corps (on the right of the French) along with British units did in the Liri valley and further on the South Africans ...and they were stopped on the outskirts of Rome by Clark so US division from Anzio would get the credit for capturing the city...what a tool.
Tool is rather a mild description.
@@apocalypsesioux OK, Useless tool...
Gee, Clark was the first one I thought of also.
Nobody was quite sure which side he was working for.🙄
He was working on his own side
@@lovablesnowman 👍
@@lovablesnowman Just like MacArthur.
as bad as Clark was he actually moved faster/better than Monty in Italy
@@bigwoody4704 When was Monty in Italy?? Monty left Italy after Sicily and the initial invasion in the south. Harold Alexander was the British Chap in Italy and was not hated like Clark.
The word 'hated' brings strong emotions into it. I think a more accurate assessment would be that Fredendall was only in command for a short time and had poor command performance. I do not believe he was actually hated by his troops. Stillwell is mostly hated by the Chinese because his incompetence got a large Chinese army destroyed, in addition to having horrible relations with Chinese leaders. Clark is hated because he had the ego of Patton but with much less success.
I don't know where all this revisionist hate hard on for Stillwell comes from. The nationalist army was a mess start to finish and Chang was a bandit.
That sums it up pretty well: you can get away with being an arrogant ass, as long as you get (more or less) the results you're told to get.
@@leary4 The nationalists were a mess, but Stillwell was a regimental commander promoted vastly over his level of competence. Jiang was a tinpot dictator, but far from a fool. Jiang was overmatched from the beginning, but managed to keep the KMT together and fighting.
@@leary4 A lot Chang's reputation comes from Stillwell though.
@A Velsen " The love for Stillwell was always a Cold War myth, only sustained by deceitful accounts"
Who loving Stillwell was a myth?
I'm afraid ya showed ur cards with the knee mortar thing, that was the myth that never was.
The nationalists were crooks. They went to Taiwan and established a crooked state and it took decades to un bend it. Look my friend sometimes a tall building is just a tall building...... and Chaing was a very tall building.
MHI.
My grandfather was in the navy in the pacific I can tell you his opinion, sorry FACT! The most. Hated general in all of history from 1775 till the end of time is Dugout Doug
My Grandfather lost his leg fighting in the Pacific. He hated McArthur as well.
Birds of a feather...
I am Australian. He didn't have a high opinion of our forces.
Even his biographers LIED about him, to make him look better. In the movie, "MacArthur", with Gregory Peck playing him, they depict HIM as the originator of the concept of BYPASSING Japanese strong points like Rabaul, and leaving them to "wither on the vine". According to Geoffery Perrett in "There's a War to be Won, the history of the U.S. Army in WWII", the concept originated in the Pentagon, and was RESISTED at first by MacArthur. I honestly think he was more held in contempt by his men, rather than actively hated the way Mark Clark was.
@@richardcall9509 he scuppered the whole prewar plan ( that I think he helped write ) of hunkering down in the interior of the Philippines and waiting for help , just at the point when it was obvious that that help was going to take a lot longer to get there. The only thing you can’t blame him for is how the AAC managed to get it’s self Caught on the ground after they knew what happened at Hickam and wake and tried to avoid that.
Speaking only for myself, of the American Generals Clark and McArthur are the Generals I dislike the most.
Exactly!
Lloyd Fredendall is the third in the race for most incompetent. But he didn't get nearly as many killed as the others.
If you compare McArthur's effectiveness in the Pacific to Nimitz's you'd probably change your tune. Nimitz gets all the glory, but he also used brute force without regard to casualties - and boy did the Marines take casualties. McArthur used containment strategies to neutralize Japanese forces in place and took far fewer casualties.
The difference is that Nimitz stayed out of the public eye while McArthur did not. As a result, McArthur had a lot more enemies and his historical appraisal (for better or worse) reflects it.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 but Fredendall was quickly reassigned. He lost badly at one battle in February of 1943, and then got pulled.
@@iroll You are entitled to your opinion just as I'm entitled to mine. We disagree and that's fine. Have a good day.
As is well known Clark's capture of Rome was overshadowed by the D day landings in Normandy 2 days later.
I don't think you can classify it as the "capture" of Rome. Rome was declared an "open" city. The allies walked in without any resistance , thank goodness after all the men that were lost in bitter fighting at Monte Casino etc.
Was Rome captured or an open city?
Rome was declared an "open city" on the 14th August 1943.
My father, a WW2 vet, had nothing good to say about Clark.
My dad loved Gen. Clark. He fought in Korea. Before Clark took command they were short of everything. After Clark took command, my dad told me he went to the Quartermaster to get some thread to sew a button that had fallen off a coat. He walked out with new gloves, socks, a warm hat, and a new coat. Before Clark they were always short of ammunition. With Clark they got ammunition. If they were denied hot food and had to eat cold food out of a can, their Officers were eating cold food, too. Before Clark Officers got hot food and enlisted men got hot food if they allowed it. With Clark if an Officer denied his men hot food he ate cold food, too. My dad told me that with Clark they spent bullets. Before Clark they spent men.
Dad really thought the world of Clark. He didn't fight in Italy or during the Second World War. Maybe Clark learned some things. ;-)
For some unknown reason, my parents named one of their sons after him. He would be very embarrassed if he ever found out this about him. He he.
That's interesting to hear, and such contrast to how he seemed post-WW2
@@Ye4rZero If you read A GENERALS LIFE by Gen. Omar Bradley, you get the same story about Gen. Patton. The movie PATTON was based on that book, but the book tells a different story. The War changed Patton. Seeing men he sent to fight dead and wounded really affected him and he became a much better General. More sympathetic to the men he was leading. The movie showed that a little - at the start of the movie he is kicking and slapping his men. At the end it showed him kissing an exhausted soldier. That may be what happened to Clark. ;-)
What about Ridgway?
@@williampoppell5189 ‘weird way to refer to your brother
I have never understood why Clark was not relieved of command, I can only guess either Italy was considered secondary in importance or he had some kind of political connections.
Clark did a good job as an assistant to Ike building the army in Britain. Giving him command in Italy was Ike's worst decision in the war.
@@jamesmichael3609 something like McClellan in the Civil War, good at building an army, no idea what to do with one.
@freebeerfordworkers I think that in these situations politics often decides the outcome. Whatever the SNAFU they had to make Clark look like a hero for liberating Rome and make the best of a bad job.....I think I am agreeing with you entirely therefore...not only that I seem to have repeated what you said....doh!
His wife had many political connections stateside. Don’t underestimate her influence.
@@mcelravys that answers my question.
strangely enough I read the Title, and one name jumped ahead of everyone else, Mark Clark, next was Vinegar Joe, McArthur was also a close contender
My grandfather almost disowned me for reading the book ‘ American Caesar’ he hated Dugout Doug more than anyone in Israel hates Heinrich Himler
McArthur was one of the most beloved generals of the war. Yeah there were some who hated him, but even through the Koran War he was popular enough to challenge the power of the President. And when Truman finally got rid of him it was a major scandal.
MacArthur was a lot like Monty. They both knew how to get the rank and file to cheer for them and the were exceptionally skilled at playing the press which led to them probably being the two most overrated Generals of the Western Allies. Patton fits that two and is also massively overrated, but he was a good general and there aren't many I would prefer leading an armoured spearhead (although pretty much any other circumstance I take Bradley ahead of him in a heartbeat).
Clarck and McArthur made the same horrible mistake: push towards a capitol when the enemy main force was ready to be surrounded. A large portion of the Acis forces in Italy could have been surrounded after the final breakthrough, but wanting honkr more then victory he pushed for Rome instead, same as McArthur pushing for Seoul after Inchon instead of cutting of the North-Koreans around Bhutan.
There is one other instance where this happened: capturing Paris instead of linking up with the Dragoon forces moving North, letting around 100.000 Germans escape, but neither of the above heroes was involved in that...
@Mialisus everyone hates politicians, even the ones they support.
@@sjonnieplayfull5859 have no idea if the liberation of Paris was orders from Ike , but considering that hitler ordered it destroyed I know it was politically motivated, not for glory but as a gesture towards the free French , not saying capturing 100k Germans wouldn’t have been better, but if I had been in charge it’s something I would have to at least taken under consideration.
Thank You . This was beyond great.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I have a recollection that Clark was not popular with the author of The Ultra Secret. The author's job was to brief the commands about what it was and how to use it.
He said Clark sat there chewing his gum, got bored and left.
He didn't comprehend the significance of the Ultra intercepts??? What a f!@kwit! No side in all of human history has had such a view of the enemy's communications and quite possibly never will again and he got bored and left his briefing? That behaviour should have been reported back up the chain of command.
@@markfryer9880 if General Marshall had wind of this, he most likely would've relieved Clark of Command. Marshall was known for firing officers that didn't perform to expectations.
@@black10872 Maybe Clark was in with Marshall, you know, like the son of an old West Point buddy or something, or had him "where the hair is short"?
Jerks like him often get promoted and become fixtures because of political connections, not because of competence. It only comes to light later when they are actually (unexpectedly?) called on to do the job they have the title for.
@@tomt373 no. Marshall was 16 years older than Clark. Marshall went to West Point just before Clark left his toddler stage. They were not buddies. However, Clark was good friends with Eisenhower. That's the culprit right there.
@@black10872 Thanks for the correction. Yes, they were old West Point buddies that actually lived in the same barracks.
Do you think that Eisenhower was more about placating political interests then winning the war? I seems that way to me.
What is astounding is Clark stayed in command for as long as he did, and continued to move up in the Army. That sort of undercuts the narrative Eisenhower was a "supreme" commander, or that his boss, General Marshall, was a genius in finding leaders for the European Campaign.
Even more astounding is that Freidenhall [3rd Army Kasserine] was promoted on his return to the U.S.
General Jacob Devers was Clark's superior. Every time he showed up at Clark's HQs. the staff officers thought Devers was going to fire him. When asked why he didn't fire Clark, Devers said "I wanted to but didn't have a replacement for him." Ike protected Clark by taking away every promotable Corps commander away from Devers for the D-Day campaign.
When asked about writing an introduction to general Clark’s memoirs Winston Churchill refused , possibly due to his allowing the German army to retreat and as you know the allies were still fighting in Italy at wars end
Another interesting aspect about Clark is, that he was Commander in Chief US Forces in Austria after the war (1945-1947).
In austrian postwar History he is seen in no way negative and he was actually well respected for the his work rebuilding the country (at the least in the US sector)
Makes sense. He was a great administrator and military theorist but he was not very good at adapting on the fly and in direct command. Pattons immaturity forced him into this role.
Needs to add Gen Milley to the list (realize he is not WWII), but I can’t think of a more hated General Officer.
Could you please tell us why? I am sincerely curious. Thanks
Because he stopped the Trump coup. MAGAs hate him.
@@emiliamartucci8291 He stopped the Trump coup, MAGAs hate him
@@davidmurdoianmacdonald2399
What coup, you mean some people walking about.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that an unarmed man in a silly hat taking photo's amounts to a coup?
Jeez some mothers do have them
You mean the DJT WHO.had an election BLATANTLY stolen from him? Installing this brain damaged demented, dishonest POS in his place.
Exceptional video gents. That was a lot more detail than I had learned previously. Excellent!
Stillwell should at least tie as all the Chinese hated him too. He escapes notice as he was an excellent spin master in a neglected theatre.
Chinese Communists love Stilwell
While Clark underperformed compared to other US generals, he had to execute Churchill's insane strategy of defeating Germany via the mountainous Italian peninsula, which was well-defended by the Deutches Heer.
I always thought that Lloyd Fredendall would be the most hated general. Well, he was promoted to safety quickly after Kasserine Pass catastrophe, so many didn't probably get his name right.
We had a saying ' promote him to where he can do the least damage'.
Unimaginative mind. Wasted lives. Still wanted dead or alive in Texas.
I was surprised you didn’t include in your presentation a word or two about General Clark’s choice for VI Corp Commander of the amphibious forces that landed at Anzio, Italy-Major General John P. Lucas.
Lucas was an extremely poor choice to lead the Anzio landings.
One of rare elements in Lucas’ defense was the terrible advice and confusing orders given by Clark to Lucas prior to the commencement of the landing on how to conduct the operation.
General Clark additionally compounded the Anzio disaster by his (Clark) dithering while the operation fell apart, and the inexcusable length of time Lucas was allowed to remain in command of VI Corp; excessive time that contributed significantly to failure of the Anzio operation.
Agreed. He was basically an artillery man and not suite to the role. His orders were to move inland as quickly as possible and capture the high ground of the Albin Hill. But Clark encouraged him to ignore the orders of Gen. Alexander and Eisenhower, staying where Lucas felt more comfortable. So the Germans then took the high ground and played havoc on the Anzio landings. The Italian campaign just may have ended a lot sooner if it was not for Clark's interference. The French didn't like him either when he left their flank exposed and made his vain glorious dash for Rome. It cost lives!
Whether Clark thought the Italian theater was worthwhile or not the combined chiefs in Great Britain gave Clark the amphibious equipment reserved for d day in order to conduct the Anzio landing. The end result was the landing accomplished nothing, the amphibious resources could not be returned to GB and Eisenhower went forward with d day without an LST to spare. Pretty much sums up Lucas and Clarks idea of initiative.
Hard to beat Stillwell. He did a lousy job of even trying to work with Chiang, exacerbated by his reliance on pro-Soviet advisors like Own Lattimore, John Vincent and John Service, who were effectively doing their best to undermine the ROC government For background information, I suggest the late M. Stanton Evans' "Blacklisted by History" about the so-called McCarthy era.
I have made a note of Evans's book. Seventy-five years of being told in schools and the media that thinking communism is a threat is benighted and silly paranoia have preceded the present crisis. Tuchman says that Stilwell admired the fighting qualities of the communists and implies that neither she nor he was much worried about their ideology and objectives. Of course, Vinegar Joe didn't get along with either Peanut of Chennault. What do you say to the assertion that Stilwell's task was really impossible, with inadequate manpower and materiel for warfare in Burma, and Chiang's traditional Chinese approach to war? - He and Clark were very different men, though, were they not?
As always, when giving out awards for worst general, it will always and inevatably be hugely dependant on perspective. I think one might argue that Mark Clark was quite likely the worst general commanding american soldiers during WW2. He did a lot of things wrong (and for the wrong reasons), probably prolonging the italian campaign by months. Thus his vanity and pigheadedness very likely caused thousands of allied casualities.
Stillwell, did more or less similar stupid things as Mark Clark and very likely from similar reasons. But he did them for a longer time, with more troops involved and thus casuing considerably more casualities. And worse still: his ineptitude caused also caused political problems (between the US and the Chinese, and between the US and the British) which damaged the entire China and South East Asia campaign of WW2. The consequences of some of those problems might still be felt even today.
I think one could argue that Mark Clark was a local disaster, causing allied losses in a direct and clearly visible way. Whereas Stillwell was a disaster on a geopolitical scale causing even larger direct casualities among the chinese. Added to that he very probably might have - in a more indirect and less visible way - caused as many american losses during WW2 as Mark Clark managed to do.
Stilwell he was so bad that a famous Brit Commander told his comms people not to take any calls from Stilwell He had just ruined Merrills Marauders as a fighting unit and the Brit was not going to allow him to do it to his men
Burma was Britsh possesion and the GIs being from a republic shouldn't have been there. Of course your precious Crown forgot about helping the ANZACs that were helping the crown. That's alright tatters an emerging world power picked up the tab - as was expected
@@bigwoody4704 When will you Americans learn that the Crown had no control of the War And as far as Britain not helping,` that was that HALF AMERICAN fat slug Churchill not the King.
You never picked up Australias' tab my friend we paid you off for lend Lease in the tax year 46/47 [ Source Wayne Swann Australian Treasurer 1990s ] You on the other hand owed more to Australia than we owed you. [Source Australian War Museum Research Centre 2008 ?] The problem was you never paid us back You still technically owes us today /
"General Clark, cut off the German's escape if practicable."
"If practicable" lol sounds familiar...
I guess you must know his orders were to cut Highway 6 then go for Rome. This he did but with one div sending the bulk of his troops to Rome. The review of this said he had obeyed his orders but not their intent.
@@steventhompson399 it’s a term that should never be used in warfare,it got Lee in trouble at Gettysburg…
An excellent presentation
I'd like to suggest humbly a topic for a video. American-Japanese troops fighting at Monte Casino. I had, as child, the rare chance, to talk with such a veteran and what he told was infuriating!
The most decorated unit of the American army during WW2.
Brazil army fighting in italy
My father was removed off the dead pile at the Rapido. A mortar got him. Shrapnel from his chest down. It was an Asian American medic that saw his fingers twitching and on a second check he had a pulse. My father was hit on the second crossing. He was 19 yrs old at the time. He never talked much, my grandmother told us. He used to awake screaming at night and sweat through his clothes. The PTSD was horrible. His best friend Robert Provost had his head blown off next to my father. He's in an American Cemetery in Italy. My brother is named after him. Robert Provost was adopted. It took 18 months of rehab before my father was well enough to go home. He lived with physical and mental scars (literally}. The damage to the brain (scaring) caused several strokes and eventually dementia and NPH. He was offered the paperwork for a silver (usually turned down) sta,r but he told them he only wanted to go home. His war from within was felt as I had stitches from his outbursts. Vietnam, I was lucky in a high draft number. I kinda took my hits from WW2. I'm sure I am not alone. Not everyone came back to parades and women in the streets. For many of those 34th and 36th the war didn't end. Clark was an SOB. Has any General other than Clark been known to sacrifice 1700 men for and ego?
I would say it’s Admiral Ernest King. His anti-British stance as well as ignoring their advice on the convoy system lead many US merchant sailors to their deaths.
When he was a Lt, Admiral King was servery reprimanded by Admiral McVay, whose son later commanded the USS Indianapolis, who King ordered Court Martial for "hazarding his command".
Not a general.
@@ErwinPommel General, Admiral, does it really matter?
Both King and Clark were prima donnas and shirked responsibilities for men's lives. Patton was a big prima donna, and was also vain glorious, but at least he fought to win the war, not lose it. WWI vets never forgot McArthur burning Hooverville.
@@rogerusa9696 I wouldn’t say King was a glory hound, more of a spiteful man with anti-British views that conflicted with his job. Problem is those attitudes cost so many sailors their lives unnecessarily and poor excuses like “we didn’t have enough ships” showed he didn’t really try to protect those convoys. British had same issue of not enough ships but still got it done.
I love the way these fellows analyze these events. Sometimes when you read of engagements in books it's very, very confusing.
My father was a Captain, company commander in yhe Texas 36th. Fought ai Salerno and Monte Cassino. He hated him, no respect.
'Blood 'n guts Patton'?
The G.I.: "yeah his guts our blood!"
No better than Cadorna or Hotzendorff in WW1.
@@mikereger1186 I disagree. Most WW1 generals were in a league of their own, and those two idiots in particular were in another league of their own compared to even the rest of the WW1 generals.
@@craniusdominus8234 those two clowns had years to gain a solid reputation for incompetence...
However, I would suggest a closer examination of Patton at Metz, Aachen and the Hurtgen Forest to understand his limitations, and what happens when a cavalryman meets fortified positions.
He seems to have run out of ideas rather quickly, and frontal assaults cost an awful lot of lives - just like the epic pair cited.
@@mikereger1186 conrad and Luigi oh my god don't mention them I despise them lol ... even in the great war with all that carnage and no shortage of seemingly incompetent leaders those two stand out and not for anything positive, you'd be inclined to think they wanted to kill their own men off, I'm not sure I would put even Clark on their level
@@steventhompson399 check out his Korean War record for an encore, then. I recall that he took command there after Ridgeway.
It's great that you find these subject matter experts to participate. Keep up the awesome work. Some day you can do a video on why Generaloberst Hoth is overshadowed by "Father of the Panzerwaffe" Guderian....
I am impressed by your analysis especially given the language barrier.
How much was maintaining a good relationship between the allies a factor in Clark not facing negative consequences? I wonder.
He was equally despised by the British in Italy. Nothing would have pleased 15th Army Group HQ more than his removal. Had he been a British General under Alexander he would have been court martialed.
p
Just listen to his interviews from the 'World at War' series and you can tell why he was hated.
Actually I am not an expert about American military history. So I don’t want to judge on that particular topic. But It is very easy to name the most hated German General of WW2. That is for sure Ferdinand Schörner ( Der blutige Ferdinand/ the bloody Ferdinand).
What he did to get that title?
@@aleksaradojicic8114
Handling of alleged „deserters“. He was sentenced by the Soviets to the obligatory 25 year’s imprisonment. He returned to eastern Germany in 1954 ( released as a member of the last German POW detachment to return to Germany ). The East Germans kept him for about one year in their custody. After that he went to West Germany. But he was that much hated by the ordinary former German Soldiers and their families, that he was charged with manslaughter ( for having executed many German Soldiers for alleged desertion), and sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment for that.
@@aleksaradojicic8114
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Sch%C3%B6rner
@@markschoning5581 I see.
oooph he was a nasty fellow after reading his wiki page. yikes. he should have got done in like Peiper.
Clarke must have been upset that his capture of Rome isnt really talked about.
Well, let’s put it this way: the history professors at The Citadel didn’t have anything nice to say about him. And he was laid to rest there, for what it’s worth.
That said, that may be one of the many mythical „everything would have been great, had there not been General XYZ“ narratives the US military has, so thank you for that very informative video!
He was head shed at the Citadel for a while wasn't he?
I've mentioned Alan Whicker elsewhere and one of the interesting things about his memoir is that as a member of the British Army film unit he encountered Clark and retinue on the road to Rome and then years later interviewed him when he was at the Citadel. Whicker asked Clark if he had any regrets about Rome and he remained convinced that he was in the right.
You might want to talk about the guy in charge of the Hurtgen Forest debacle....
Gen Hodges of US 1st Army?
Dankeschön, dear Deutsch brothers! Very excellent video. Cheers to you from the States! 💛🙏🏼
I had a copy of board game "Anzio" by Avalon Hill as a kid. It depicted well the difficulty of the Italian Campaign.
When I was in high school our geometry teacher had Avalon Hill board games set up in his office. We used to play before and after school. He brought in Anzio to play once. He and one of the guys started but both wound up quitting the game. It was a continual stalemate and got boring.
@@davidcox3076 "Blitzkrieg" was my first AH game; my other favorites were "Tobruk", "Panzer Leader" and "Ceasar's Legions". A good buddy had a copy of "Squad Leader".
@@douglasstrother6584 wargaming is a great hobby and shows you just what Clark and other generals were up against in reality. Avalon Hill games were generally pretty good, Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader was a favorite, along with Tobruk and Arab-Isreali Wars. GMT Games has some good stuff these days.
My Father was a sniper with Co.F 2nd Bat. 351st Reg. 88th Inf. Div. and he hated Clark’s guts. He said that instead of drawing a noose around Kesselring’s 10th Army at Sante Maria Infante, he sought the glory of capturing Rome costing 1000s of unneeded casualties there and at Monte Cassino.
Its a toss up between Clark and Stilwell
@hognoxious Stillwell was abusive to his troops and forced men with malaria, typhus and dysentery to return to Mytikanaa to fight the Japanese again. Was firm believer nepotism by promoting his son on his staff ahead of more qualified officers. And more...
Very interesting, and a good effort for doing it all in English.
My one slight niggle concerns the tiny map. It was impossible to see: even on a very large screen.
Mark Clark wins! He squandered his troops, and opportunities to help capture an entire German Army by conveniently misinterpreting orders so he could run to Rome in search of Glory. The others were inept in other ways, but did not intentionally sacrifice lives for personal glory. (that I am aware of)
Nice video. Thank you.
I had been in Dresden last week and it is a very good exhibition - at least the Paratrooper one cause the usual one is a bit of everything and nothing and quite tough to go through even though all exhibition objects have an english description too even though the german and english ones are quite often pretty small especially in vitrine areas.
Paratrooper exhibition is a must, the usual exhibition has some interesting and unique pieces but you have too look for those and find such like a letter about the order of 35 million pervitin dragees in 1939 for 1940 campaign. But such are lucky finds cause you have to read a lot to find such letter. Also there was another letter for a right hand of Göring with jewish anchestory who had to fight for his life even late 1944 to get rid of the SS hunt and after a sterilisation sugery.
Tiny jewels and tough to find cause there might be a lot more I might have missed after spending several hours from the 15th century onwards digging into artefacts and amour over even german navy pieces. The great war was not covered that well at all to be honest and do not drive there for such topic cause you might be pretty disappointed.
The big issue is the huge amount of exhibition pieces across so many centuries and the kind how they put pieces together . Hard to find a red / dotted line between the pieces but also suprising finds like a V2 from the bottom to the top or big caliber shell from the big gustav or however it was called, the big gun used at Sebastopol where only 2 had been build. If you look at the shell and imagine the extraordinary huge railway gun then the V2 rocket looks quite different and usefull cause the shell of such gun was not that big compared to the propellant that was needed.
WW2 exhibition is great - but be aware no tanks and close to no guns except 20 mm FLAK or so, but the go to exhibition is that paratrooper one for sure. Lot of effort and care for details. To watch the whole museum you can spend 2 days, cause 1 day was too less for us.
Grandpa served in the 36th ID, 143d regiment(Anzio, Velletri, Alban Hills).
He and my grandma hated Mark Clark until the day they died.
Clark and Stilwell: tough call there. Had Clark thought more in terms of winning the campaign and not his own ego, he might (BIG might) have realized that cutting off the German retreat would've got him some lasting fame and assuaged his jealousy -no other word to describe it; of the Overlord planners
Military historian Max Hastings had once written that the negative side of the Allied Command was the competition between Brooke, Marshall, Nimitz and Ernst J. King over policy, Bradley and Eisenhower over strategy, Eisenhower and Montgomery over resources and Richard O'Connor and Patton over aggression.
But the ugly side was the debate between Percival and MacArthur over incompetence, MacArthur, Halsey, Patton and Clark over dramatics and shockingly MacArthur and Clark over foolishness.
Stillwell surprisingly doesn't find a mention, neither in dramatics nor incompetence.
My Dad was in McArthur's army. He hated McArthur. Years later some folks gave Dad the book "American Caesar." He said that might burn the book. I mentioned that to a guy I worked with. His father was also in McArthur's army and he told his dad what my Dad said. He sent back the message "tell the man to burn the book." The other man was a Federal Judge.
Stillwell was lucky few US troops were under his command. No one checked the survivors of the Chinese forces under his command. The US force Chiang to accept him as Chief of the General Staff of the National Chinese Army. After using Chaing's last mobile troops (essentially what he used to stop Japanese offensives) to save the Brits in Burma. This destroyed the units. Stillwell than marched out with the survivors to India, out of command for a fairly long period of time acting more as a corps commander than the Chief of Staff of an Army.. Chiang commented that if was a Chinese officer that he would have him shot for dereliction of duty.
Which makes him in part for the triumph of the Communist Chinese Army after the Japanese surrendered, when it evolved into a struggle between Kai Cheks' Nationalists and Mao's Communist Army. The Nationalists didn't have enough soldiers left to fight properly, in no small part due to Stilwell's careless wastage of them outside of the decisive theater of battle. We are still suffering the consequences of Stilwell's terrible command.🤔😢
@@jacqueslefave4296 No, Stillwell was gone but the animosity between him and Chiang lingered on. It was abetted by the left lean in the State Department and the anti-Chiang mood in the OSS in China. The problem was so bad that some supplies actually were sent to the Communists. After the war, it was worse with arms and ammunition embargoed. The last embargo was finally terminated shortly before the Nationalists fell in 1949. One stark example was the Nationalist request for 7.92mm German ammunition captured to be shipped to China (most of the army there used weapons in that caliber). The request was denied and the captured ammo dumped the Baltic. There are many other issues but that alone is one of the worst.
@@arthurmosel808 There were some highly placed actual Communists in the State Dept at the time as well. Senator McCarthy was crude, ham-handed, and painted with too wide a brush, but on the whole, he was correct.
I also think that the decision to
"do Europe first" had it's merits but
had a lot to do with us losing China.
Madam Chaing hated Churchill for that reason. I also think that the horrors of the Blitz in London swayed public opinion, the horrors in China were arguably worse, but not covered on radio by Edward R. Murrow and also covered on the newsreels visually, but China was not. Finally, Churchill's appeal to "preserve Christian Civilization" had a powerful effect, but has long since been abandoned by the Europeans, they have adopted the German philosophy of positivism, in which we are free to construct our own moral universe, shared almost completely by the western Europeans, not so much by the Eastern Europeans, largely by the British, and the American left, parts of the center, but not by the Right, unless you include the libertarians among them. It's going to be tough, because we have to face a struggle with the CCP while combatting the left and the false brethren of the RINO's.😨
@@jacqueslefave4296 I avoided details of how Red the State Department and parts of the OSS were. One of my favorite laugh (but not because it is funny) is that Senator McCarthy somehow turned into the House UnAmerican Activity Committee. He didn't serve on the committee, those were Representatives, it was a committee of the House of Representatives, not a joint committee of Congress. McCarthy was used by the left to discredit the committee due to his own behavior and history. A trove of classified US intelligence intercepts of communications with the Soviets from some of the left's so called "innocents" was released during the brief period of openness before the Putin era began. It was released in book form, the Verona Report is the name if I remember correctly (I have stored somewhere). The communists made a lot of valuable recruits during the Trust Operation during the late 20s and early 30s. That operation gave the Soviets access to funds and both legal and illegally obtained technology; as well as the recruitment opportunities.
@@arthurmosel808 The times may have verged on paranoia about Communism at the time, but keep in mind that people were understandingly jittery about betrayal, the transfer of nuclear secrets to the Soviets by the Rosenbergs, and later the Fusion bomb by Klaus Fuchs, first to the Soviets and later the Mainland CCP, as well as the revelations of Whittaker Chambers about Alger Hiss and his spy ring, had the American people in a state of frenzy about betrayal. Still, we had about a year and a half of a monopoly on the fission bomb, and Truman could have bullied Stalin out of Eastern Europe, at least. We know now that they were in a wild panic during that period. But since the Civil War at least, America has been TERRIBLE at managing its foreign policy.
On more lesser known but key sources on this period is "Colonel House's Diaries" it is out of print but I'm sure that there are plenty of used copies out there. It details a suspicious continuation of atom bomb research directly from the Manhattan Project to the Soviet Union aboard lend lease aid planes sent to them via routine air cargo flights at the time.😬
oddly enough I have an autographed post-war photo of General Clark that my uncle bought me at a yard sale
Stillwell is still the worst. Sure, Clark was incompetent and placed his own advancement ahead of the welfare of his men, which should have gotten him not only removed from command, but dismissed from service. But Stillwell's odious personality was actually undermining the war effort. Further, Stillwell's incompetence derailed an entire campaign in Burma. Both disastrous, but Stillwell was absolutely toxic.
@David Erickson I tried linking an article and a video but apparently the channel filters said, "no". There is a video on this channel about Stilwell and if you google "Stilwell worst general", you should see several articles about him.
My Grandfather said he didn't like Patton, but did not go into so much detail. He did say he liked serving under Alexander Patch. He did not serve directly under Patton, but a lot of G.I. scuttlebutt probably talked trash about him. He seems to have been an effective, if eccentric general.
It is a small wonder that Mark Clark was not "accidentally" shot in the back by his own troops.
Fragging, anyone??
He has to be in front of you. It’s hard to explain how he was “accidentally” shot in the back, when he was hiding in the rear, out of danger.
I could be wrong about this, but I recall that in reading the book The Ultra Secret, General Clark got up and walked out of the briefing long before it was finished. Since we are talking about Ultra, there were only a few officers from each command that were allowed to be in on the secret. The term was called _"bigoted."_ Clark wanted nothing to do with Ultra. Generals such as Patton used Ultra to it's fullest. Clark never used it at all. Could have saved countless lives and would have shortened the war in Italy.
It is a toss up, but Clark takes the prize. He was more interested in grabbing glory than in the wellbeing of his men or the success of the campaign. The British General Alexander knew very well, but inter allied political relations prevailed.
Operation Shingle was the name given to the Anzio landings. It was spilt into 3 distinct groups, "Peter" Force landed in the north and was made up of the British 1st Infantry Division with the 46th Royal Tank Regiment, 2 Battalions of Commandos (No.2 and 43) with 3 Field Ambulances from the Royal Army Medical Corps. Next was Ranger Group who were to take Anzio its self, with the 6615th Ranger Force (1st, 3rd and 4th Ranger Battalions with the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion) with the 83rd Chemical Mortar Battalion and 2 Evacuation Hospital's (the 93rd and 95th). "X-Ray" Force landed south east and was the 3rd U.S. Infantry Division (Major General Truscott), ranforced by 10th Engineer Battalion, 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion, 751st Tank Battalion, 441st AAA Automatic Weapons Battalion, Battery B, 36th Field Artillery Regiment (155mm Gun)(Motorized), 69th Armoured Field Artillery Battalion, 84th Chemical Battalion (Motorized) and the remainder of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment.
By midnight the Allies had 36,000 and 3,200 landed, with 13 KIA and 97 wounded. Lucas ordered the advance inland halted by the British 1st Division at 2 miles and and the U.S. 3rd Division after 3 miles, even the Italian resistance had offered to guide the 3rd Division to the vital Alban Hills. Within 2 days the Germans had 40,000 men surrounding the bridgehead, and 2 days later the Germans had the 4th Parachute Division with the 3rd Panzer Grenadier Division in front of the very Albon Hills that Lucas had ignored, and the Hermann Göring Panzer Division. On the 25th of January command of the defence was handed to the German 14th Army under Von Mackensen. Elements of eight German divisions were employed in the defence line around the beachhead, and five more divisions were on their way to the Anzio area.
When the breakout at Anzio finally happened Clark decided to go for the Glory of Liberating Rome instead of cutting off Route 6 for the German 10th Army and trapping most of their 14th Army, with along with linking up with the elements of the British 8th Army on Route 5 would have caused the end of 300,000 German troops in the defence of Italy. After heavy fighting had taken place to capture the port town of Ortona at the same time as the Anzio landings by the Canadian 1st Infantry Division, which was to distract the German 10th Army (which it did). Route 6 was supposed to have been cut but the Anzio landings. But after the absolute failure of the Anzio landings under the command of Major General John P. Lucas (almost as moronic as Clark), why Lucian K. Truscott wasn't in command shows that Clark was a complete moron. In fact it took a direct order from General Alexander to replace Lucas with Truscott 6 days after he was ordered to on the 2nd of February. A second operation was launched after the 2nd Polish Corps under Lieutenant General Władysław Anders took the Abbey and Monte Cassino with the help of the British 78th Infantry Division on the 17th May, which allowed the French Expeditionary Corps, which is a joke to call them French considering there was only 1 "French" very understrength Division made up of Legionaries and a few actual Frenchmen, the rest of the French Expeditionary Corps was made up of the 2nd Moroccan Infantry Division, 3rd Algerian Infantry Division and 4th Moroccan Infantry Division's which were pressed Divisions. On the 23rd of May, after the British 8th Army under Lieutenant-General Sir Oliver Leese, sent the 1st Canadian Corps under Lieutenant-General E. L. M. Burns consisting of the 1st Canadian Infantry Division, 2nd New Zealand Division (Lieutenant-General Bernard Freyberg), 5th Canadian Armoured Division, had broken out at Ortona and reached and secured Pescara. From Pescara the 3rd Greek Mountain Brigade, the British 21st Tank Brigade from the 1st Canadian Corps and the British 10th Corps with the 10th Indian Infantry (mountain) Division, British 9th Armoured Brigade to secure Route 5. With the plan that General Sir Harold Alexander commander of the 15th Army Group (Clark's superior in every way), was to link up with the 5 Divisions that broke out of Anzio. Clark even used Lieutenant-General Sidney Kirkman's British 13th Corps made up of the British 1st Infantry Division, British 6th Armoured Division and the 8th Indian Mountain Infantry Division as the covering force while he used 5 U.S. Divisions and elements of the French Expeditionary Corps to advance to Rome.
After the collapse of the Gothic Line and his vanity being his driving force to allow the escape of the German Army's up Route 6, General Mark Clark has the blood of every Allied casualty from Cassino to the end of the War in Italy.
I find the “ prestige” of capturing Rome interesting. Correct me if I’m wrong but hadn’t Italy already technically surrendered, was a co-beligerant, Mussolini was deposed and imprisoned, and Rome wasn’t really defended by the Germans. Rome was already sort of liberated, the US just got to drive in there and enjoy some good wine
Its very easy to say that now but at the time you can imagine the situation on the ground would be much more confused and fluid, also the capture of Rome (undamaged) was as highly significant as the capture of Paris, both highly symbolic and of immeasurable cultural significance, future generations are thankful that these cities weren't leveled as others were.
@@SirAntoniousBlock I’m sure it was and I’m sure that Clark felt like it would be prestigious to be associated with liberating Rome from “occupation”. However the Allies could have bombed Rome while they were still a belligerent but chose not to. It could be because nothing of industrial or military importance there and to preserve the ancient archit
@@TheBigSleazy I don't think Clark was especially unique amongst even US commanders, we all know about Patton but even he can't hold a candle to the megalomania arrogance hatred and rivalry of admiral King and gen McArthur lol.
It didn't save Caen or Dresden and other cities of historical significance, I'm grateful that Rome was saved.
@@SirAntoniousBlock couldn’t agree more with everything you just said
@@TheBigSleazy I was just surprised that the boys decided too pick on Clark, there were many mad bad or incompetent commanders at all levels in all forces.
Actually, I took care of Eisenhower's cryptographer from the signal corp. Clark wanted to withdraw from Anzio. Eisenhower told him to "stay put" he had to stay and fight. This was 20yrs ago, I always asked old vets what they did during the war and this gentleman gave me this pearl!
What ? Nobody voted for ''dugout'' Doug MacArthur ?
Oh yeah, so true. General McArthur had ALL his fighters & bombers destroyed on the ground 2 days after Pearl Harbor. e
Very informative thx
My great great uncle is Troy H. Middleton who was a US general during WW2, I love WW1 and WW2, funnily enough, my birthday is a significant event in WW2 and it is coming up, it is in the liberation of France
I didn't think I know enough about enough American generals in that war to offer an opinion, but based on what I had read of Clark's performance I'm relieved to learn U.S. soldiers didn't have anyone of whom they thought worse.
I'm no fan of Clark's, but I doubt the Germans would have let themselves get trapped. At worst, they would have surrendered heavy equipment.
My uncle, Edward Leonard, was an infantryman in an armored reconnaissance unit (I believe it was the 119th or 115th Cavalry from New Jersey) fighting under Mark Clark and was part of the forces that landed at Anzio, only to become bogged down on the beach because of the failure of command to advance inland quickly and keep opposition forces off balance.
The only difference between MacArthur and Clark is Clark didn't have a full time propaganda machine on his staff.
Clark wasn't a Field Marshall in a foreign nation who based decisions on the PAYOUT from said action. And also wasn't a pedophile.
My father served under him in WW11 . He spoke well of him .
General Bedell Smith comes to mind as a hated general, but I think Mark Clark takes the cake.
"Beetle" Smith was Ike's Chief of Staff. If he ever commanded troops. it was during the interwar period. Staff officers don't usually rate much notice, let alone hatred, by the troops.
@@richardcall9509 you don't have to command troops to be disliked. As Ike's chief of staff, any general or admiral who wished to speak with Ike had to go through Smith. I read many accounts of senior officers disliking Smith and in fact some actually detested him. Patton was one of those generals, but there were many others. They said that Smith just had a wretched personality. But I'm sure if he ever commanded troops they would have hated him, too.
@@richardcall9509 Yeah, quite common feeling towards the Chief of Staff to any higher level commander. The Chief is usually the one who plays “the bad guy” in passing out unpopular orders and commands.
I am a Marine Corps Vietnam combat vet and a retired Army Officer (LTC). West Point coughs out those officers who believe in mission, mission, mission and it does not matter who gets killed and how valid the mission may be. The best officers are Marine Mustangs (former enlisted). They are not going to get killed for no reason but are going to do their damn best to do it within reason.
I think the hate for Clark is misplaced. Very few people look at things from his perspective. He was a WW1 veteran and he saw the fighting in Italy as another WW1. Further he (correctly) thought that WW2 would never end as a result of the armies in Italy pushing North. They would never cross the Alps. So the only goal of the troops in Italy was to keep the German troops there and prevent them from retreating and being placed on defensive lines on the Western or Eastern front. So Clark had the goal of just keeping as many of his troops in Italy alive as he could so long as they kept the German troops in their positions. Pushing North to the Alps would do nothing to end the war faster.
Then lastly, of note on the moving on Rome. Many people say he did this for "his glory". That doesn't make sense. Clark is one of the few generals of a high enough rank to know that D-Day was happening the very next day. He would know he was not going to get "glory from taking Rome. The actual reason he took Rome rather then try to surround some of the German troops was because first the idea that they were going to easily surround the German troops is false. Maybe they would surround some of the Germans maybe not. But trying to do so would cost lives and as stated above that was one of his goals to try to keep low. And then secondly had Clark tried to surround the German units and if he succeeded in doing so or not that could have caused the new battle line between the allied and German troops to be going either trough or close to Rome. Thus leading to WW2 combat within or close to Rome causing a large amount of civilian and military deaths through such urban combat. People forget that it had been a allied goal to take Rome much earlier then they did. So Clark taking Rome to prevent deaths and complete and goal does actually make sense and is why he was not punished for the decision he made. It was not a guarantee that he would have surrounded the German troops and even if he did what does that do? There is still fighting in Italy and maybe that fighting is happening close to or within Rome itself. That could have been a worse result. SO I think Clark taking the safe decision in taking Rome then was actually the correct move for him to make. Because no matter what there is still going to be fighting happening in Italy and no matter what the war is not ending through the allied armies in Italy pushing North.
@A Velsen Patton didn't blame his troops when defeated, every vet I meant who served under Patton didn't say their unit they thumped their chest and said I served with Patton, find a vet that does that for Clark or Bradley
Clark blamed his men if plans didn't work such as too many Indians in the British army under his command. He wasted men just like WW1 if wasn't for friends in high places would have been shit canned
@A Velsen First, Normandy was very far from Montgomery's plan. It was a joint effort by many people by Montgomery was far from that list of the people planning out the invasion. If one person were to be credited with the invasion plan it would be Bertram Ramsay.
Second, the Normandy plan had already ended by the time Patton was given control of the US 3rd army in Normandy. When Patton was put in control a new plan was put in place for him to break through along the Western end of the German line and then out flank the Germans which he did resulting in the Falaise pocket. And of course there would be more deaths under Patton then there were under Clarke. That is just stupid to say. Patton was fighting on the important front in a constantly moving front. Clarke was fighting on a front that had no goal in it but to occupy German troops from fighting elsewhere.
@@demonprinces17 For WW2 casualties, no he did not waste men. As for Indians he didn't have any under his command of the US 5th army (which is when his criticisms are laid). He was later given control of the US 15th Army group so he had control of the US 5th army and British 8th army and there he had Indians and many other nations troops under his command at that point. At that point the allies were basically never trying to push North. They would only push North to keep the Germans from taking their troops out of Italy and putting them on the Western or Eastern fronts. So those attacks at that point did unfortunately need to happen but were happening as a result of a grander global strategic strategy.
@A Velsen You have a lot of hate for Patton that is very misplaced in a post not even about Patton.
In Sicily Patton was given the order to take Palermo by British General Alexander after Montgomery was stopped on the road to Messina.
Saying the Germans escaped Africa because of Patton is just dumb man. He was a corp commander at the time. There were many people higher ranked then him giving him orders there.
I never said the break out at Normandy was Patton's idea.
It was not Montgomery's plan to get stopped at Caen. The plan was for the British to take Caen on the first day of the landings. But the Germans had gotten their armored divisions there in time to stop that. They prevented the British from taking Caen. This lead to the plan for Patton to push out from the West which then caused the Germans to move their armored divisions out of Caen allowing the British to take it. The Germans moved their armored divisions out of Caen to try to cut off Patton's 3rd army which they failed to do thus resulting in Patton out flanking them and forcing them to retreat and be surrounded.
And Patton's 3rd Army was the one that actually stopped the Germans attack during the battle of the Bulge unlike Montgomery's claim that he later had to apologize for that he stopped it. Patton was also not planning attacks into German as he was a army commander. That was the job of his army group commander Bradly and Eisenhower. The attacks along the front into Germany were the ones that ended up allowing the allies into Germany again unlike the failed plan for Market Garden under Montgomery's watch.
5:38 I saw your subtle smile when you heard Bernhard line lol
;)
how come clack wasnt court marshalled for going to Rome rather than cutting off the 10th army?
Because he had "tried" to follow orders. He sent one Div to capture the primary objective, Highway 6 & four divs to capture Rome the secondary objective. Also this was a few months b4 his "competence" got him promoted. The consequences were not his problem for long.
@@prof_kaos9341 no he didn’t. Unfortunately he stayed in Italy.
@@Colonel_Blimp true and edited, my memory failed.
I can see how the vets from Anzio didn't like Gen Clark. One of my cousins was in that battle which I studied while a LTC in Air War College. The problem was Clark's reluctance to expand the depth of the beach head which compromised our ability to conduct offensive operations. You might also consider ADMs Fletcher and Ghormley, the commanders at Guadalcanal. I spoke with a couple of marines who fought there who stated they were abandoned with no naval support, no food/water/ ammunition because the Admirals feared a Japanese air attack which never happened.
To be fair his primary opponent was Kesselring, who was a pretty good general.
@ Andrew: Yes, that's quite correct. Field Marshal Albert Kesselring's defense of the Italian peninsulaisstill taught at military and staff colleges today, as an example of how to carry out a fighting withdrawal while inflicting the greatest possible casualties and difficulties upon the enemy as possible. Some historians rate him as one of the top five generals on the German side during that war.
Plus Smiling Albert had the luxury of fighting a defensive campaign in a country practically made for it.
@@mpetersen6 - Yes, but in his defense (no pun intended!) he recognized the opportunity and made good use of it. If I'm not mistaken, his defensive retreat up the Italian boot is still taught at some military academies and staff schools as one example of that type of operation.
Clark was my father's commanding officer in North Africa and in his Signal corp HQ in Italy when the 5th Army liberated Rome on June 5th,1944. He never spoke about Clark probably for good reason.
"Cover" works in English in this context because the smoke does "cover" the movements (c.f. cover your tracks, "covert" from same roots), so it didn't register to me as funny wording. In this case, "conceal" sounds formal, which is probably why you picked up on it being more correct. Cover could probably be swapped for conceal in almost every case and be understood, though it would stand out as a foreign choice in common phrases that always use conceal (like "concealed weapon").
Interesting postscript, Wiktionary says: "Displaced native Middle English thecchen and bethecchen (“to cover”)" and "the original sense of the verb and noun cover was “hide from view” as in its cognate covert." So, there's the callback to the German "decken!"
"Cover" has a very specific meaning when used in a tactical/military context. It refers to something which provides both concealment and as a physical barrier to projectiles. Smoke obviously provides no physical barrier to anything, so it isn't "cover" in this sense at all.
@@chuckschillingvideos To me that's just jargon; it only has a special meaning to people within that circle. To everybody else (the vast majority of the viewers of this video) in a plain-talk discussion of history the distinction is meaningless.