General Mark W. Clark

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#1

I’m very interested what our American friends know about General Mark Clark and to what extent knowledge that this fellow is responsible for more than 60,000 dead soldiers is common in USA.
60,000+ bodies within seven month… + more wounded and thousands of irreparable battle stress casualties…

(To be really honest, this achievement of Mark Clark was shared with British General Alexander, General Leese, General Freiburg from NZ and dumbest of all of them - Polish General Anders.)

"The Abbey at Monte Cassino (the Abbazia di Montecassino), bombed into rubble by the Allied forces, only to make ideal cover for the German troops who rapidly re-entered the Abbey after the bombing. As a result, the Allies attempted again to “take” the hill on which the Abbey was situated; thousands of soldiers lost their lives in this action. Military leadership during the Peninsular Campaign by Field Marshall Alexander and General Mark Clark was inept at best and caused thousands of casualties – civil and military – that blemish the record of the services even today. Monte Cassino tops any list of disgraces resulting from egocentric military leadership, planning and execution. Historians now agree that none of the bombing and fighting served any true military purpose. It was simply a contest between the leadership of the American, English and Polish forces to see whose men could take the hill. The senseless waste of human life sickened many of us who photographed it. One small town in Texas lost 3000 of its National Guardsmen in about 3 hours in a Mark Clark-directed operation to force surrender of the town of Cassino. The operation failed. "

Regards,

Lancer44

#2

I’m commenting off the cuff here (from work). But I seem to recall that the allies eventually changed their tactics on the Italian Peninsula from bombing their objectives (ie: Monte Cassino) to bombing the supply lines to the objectives (ie: railroads and highways). This proved to be more effective as it choked off the Germans from the material they needed to carry on their resistance. The principle is still used to present day (most recently during the Gulf Wars).

#3

The book The Impossible Victory" by Brian Harpur has some revealing insights into Mark Clarke’s character, including an interview with the man himself.

It seem he was obsessed with being the one to liberate Rome, without any regard for the strategic value or cost in terms of casualties.

#4

Yes, indeed. And little correction - Mark Clark dreamed about being “Rome conqueror” not “liberator”. It’s just subtle difference, but for anyone familiar with mentality out of West Point, very important.
Carnage of 34-th and 36-th American Divisions storming Gustav Line was followed by slaughter of Brits in Liri Valley, Maoris, Indians and Poles under another megalomaniac - general Anders.

My father was in Polish Karpathian Lancers Regiment; he survived the Cassino battle, I recall his stories about infantry storming mountains stepping onto decomposed bodies of Americans from 36-th Division.
Those fellows were on the battle field unburied for 5 month.
Father told me that unbelievable stench, lack of water and constant German mortars fire were the hardest experiences.
II Polish Corps lost about one thousand dead and four thousand wounded in eight days of fighting between 11 - 18 of May 1944.

More than 60 thousand Allied soldiers died because of Mark Clark ambition. French General Juin plans were rejected and both British 8-th
and American 5-th Army went into crazy, head on attack onto fortified German lines - exact pattern from WWI.

I strongly recommend Matthew Parker’s book “Monte Cassino”.

Lancer44

#5

I recall something to this effect --the coming ‘Operation Overlord’ invasion of Normandy caused Clark to lunge for Rome in order to grab some headlines before the Atlantic Wall was pierced by Ike and Monty… Unfortunately, this led to the escape of a sizable number of German troops that could have been cut off instead.

Clark, like Gen. Douglas MacArthur and to some extent Gen. Bernard Montgomery, was tainted with a tinge of megalomania…

#6

Hi Folks,

if you want read more about such “nice” leaders take a look at this book:

“Military Blunders” Geoffrey Regan.

It full of stories where generals wasted the lives of their soldiers.

Stahler

#7

MacArthur might had suffered from megalomania, but at least he did not waste his men’s lives like Clark did. In fact, MacArthur was known for sparing his men’s lives.

He had lost about the same number of men the entire campaign from Australia to the eve of the Philippines invasion as the single Normandy campaign; another figure we can use for comparison was that his campaign from Australia to the Philippines cost less men than what Eisenhower had lost at the Battle of the Bulge defense.

http://www.ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=3

Of course it was a different kind of war between Pacific and Europe, but still, to compare Clark with MacArthur is degrading MacArthur.

#8

I disagree wholeheartedly. Gen. MacArthur was known to take credit for his subordinate general officer’s work in planning strategy. And more than a few US soldiers and Marines would take issue with your sentiments regarding MacArthur’s sparing the lives of his soldiers, especially the ones that fought at the statistically most vicious battle in history;), the Chosin, after he failed to note the vast infiltration of Chinese “Volunteers” that were actually the vanguard of the Peoples’ Liberation Army which nearly decimated the UN forces…

#9

I can’t think of a single commander that I have read of that didn’t suffer from at least a tinge of megalomania. I would think you would have to. As a general you literaly have control over thousands of lives. That has to be a bit inflating. I think the difference between the good commanders like Rommel and Patton and the bad commanders like Clark and Anders is how well they keep the overall objective in mind.