|
|
|
United States7483 Posts
|
On September 05 2011 22:54 mcc wrote:
And do we actually know anything about Sun-tzu actually being a general or do we just have the book ?
I'm pretty sure he was a chinese general
|
It must be deffi this guy:
![[image loading]](http://www.new-video.de/co/hotshots.m.jpg)
But despite the guy from Hot Shots, I'd say Hannibal, Julius Cäsar, Friedrich Barbarossa and Nobunaga
|
On September 05 2011 20:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 20:35 KasdaTheEmperor wrote:On September 05 2011 20:22 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2011 19:57 oldgregg wrote:On September 05 2011 19:51 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2011 19:38 oldgregg wrote:On September 05 2011 19:00 KasdaTheEmperor wrote:It's hard to define the greatest. As all the candidates lived in different ages, different places, and so on. However, for me, note that this is subjective, the greatest general of all times would be Khalid ibn al Waleed. That man, it is said, has never lost a battle in his life and he took part in more than hundred. He managed to defeat the biggest powers at that time, the Persian and Byzantine Empire, with an army that was poorly equipped and were few in numbers. He was the one who brought and end to the first, while the latter has never managed to retake its lost territories in the Middle East. He is known for this saying: ''When I am in the battlefield, I love it more then when I am in my house.'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-WalidHowever i bet the majority of you never heard of him, because as usual these kinds of threads treat only the West and Far East generals, rarely the Arab and Islamic ones. this guy was insane. defeating two of the worlds most powerful empires whilst being outnumbered the whole time? legend. fuck all this euro centrism! This is akin to calling a necrophiliac the greatest seducer of all time. If you actually knew your history you'd know the Byzantine and Persian empires had just fought each other to mutual destruction and the area had been pillaged, enslaved and burned to the ground so many times after the last hundred years there was nothing left to fight for and no will left to fight for it. ok fair point but the byzantines were still pretty strong and they outnumbered him a shitload. plus the guy fought over 100 battles and never lost one How were the Byzantines still pretty strong? In 613 Damascus fell. 614, Jerusalem. In 616, Egypt. The richest parts of the Byzantine Empire changed hands a dozen times. Constantinople itself was besieged in 626 and the Emperor was forced to accept a humiliating tribute to the Persian king. The Western Empire had fallen long ago (except Carthage), with the East reduced to a single city just three years before the first confrontation with Islam how exactly did you expect them to win? On paper Byzantium still looked impressive at the start of the conflict with Islam as they won the war with Persia and retook the lost territories two years before. In reality though, it was just colours shaded on the map. The lands were despoiled and Byzantium broken. It may be true that they weren't at the height of their power, but they still were the strongest nation at that time along with Persia. They had infinitely more wealth, weapons, and armies and then a bunch of people from desert come and humiliate them battle after battle. Not to mention that the Arabs fought both Byzantium and Persia simultaneously, just a few years after establishing the Caliphate. Nothing short of impressive. Completely short of impressive. In 626 Byzantium was reduced to a single city by Persia and barbarians from the north. In 627 the complete collapse of Persia allowed Byzantium to begin recovery and retake the lost territories but weren't productive. It's no use having five bases if you only have one probe and no minerals, it'll still take you a long time to recover. A strong breeze would have overrun Persia in the wake of the defeat of 627 (the peace treaty with Byzantium represented a total collapse of the empire), it was already dead. The war was almost as ruinous to the Byzantine Empire, bringing them to the brink of collapse and only surviving because Persia collapsed first, they were in no state to defend themselves against the new, energetic threat posed by the Muslim Arabs.
This is Byzantium in 650, severaly weakened but still considerably more than a single city.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NYp8x.jpg)
I realize that you stated that they reclaimed lost terroritory after the war with the Sassinad empire but at no point in my studies have I ever heard of them being a single city at this point in time, with little regional power. Can you source that? All of the other facts you stated are spot on in terms of time frame and historical accuracy, but it seems like that was an exageration to make your point.
While Byzantium was severely weakend by 627 AD , they were still a formidable empire compared to what remained around them. They were never a single city in strength (unless im mistaken, but I cant find any source validating that claim) until the Turks really began pushing them on.The Seljuq Turks made their first explorations across the Byzantine frontier into Armenia in 1065 and in 1067, a good portion of historians (at least that I have read) believe that this was the Apex of the Byzantium empire. The point at which they had can systematically categorize the events which lead to the final fall of the empire, culminating in the the sack of 1204AD from crusaders. Even then Byzantines still held the majority of the pelopenesse in greece and scattered territories. They still limped on until the turks finally conquered the territory permanently around 1400 AD. If you look at maps after 650 AD, they began to expand aggressively again. Saying they were a breath in the wind i think is fairly large exaggeration
I dont necessarily disagree that they were in a weakend state, and a shadow of their former strength, because they most definitly were. But I have to agree with Kasda that they were still certainly the most influential regional power of the time. No other empire aside from the Arab Caliphate existed south of the Danube.
Now in turns of the general thread, I generally think
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baibars is one of the top eastern generals, he pretty much single handidly ended the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem, and his sons ended the principality of Antioch, he has a pretty cool history
|
On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giCRx.jpg) Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander.
He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did.
-Inspire a revolution with words.
-Motivated his country to go to war
-Held two fronts
-Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well
-Had more precise bombing raids than the US
-Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy.
That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along.
He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents.
|
On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents.
Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general.
What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions.
|
dude. Greivous. hope this isnt a repost
|
Hitler was an awful general. His decisions on the eastern front sucked. By '42 Germany had actually lost the war, because there was no way they could overpower the Soviet Union at this point. Stalin also was an awful general, but at least he stopped in time to give orders and gave the command to people who knew what they were doin'. Both of them lived in their own world, that didn't really resemble the real world.
|
|
|
On September 06 2011 02:34 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents. Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general. What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions.
You say that, but it isn't like any of these generals lead by themselves. They kept lower level tacticians in their entourage to micromanage. Everyone has advisers. Germany lost because they were outmatched in money, army size, technology.
|
On September 06 2011 02:14 DorF wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 22:54 mcc wrote:
And do we actually know anything about Sun-tzu actually being a general or do we just have the book ? I'm pretty sure he was a chinese general
I meant if there is anything reasonably surely known about his actions as general. Because his book is not enough to proclaim him even good general, not even talking about top general.
|
Flavius Josephus was pretty damn impressive. Takes a pretty incredible tactical mind to defend anything from Roman Legions.
Although most the references to him are suspected to have been authored by him....so maybe they aren't too reliable.
|
On September 06 2011 02:56 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 02:34 Mjolnir wrote:On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents. Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general. What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions. You say that, but it isn't like any of these generals lead by themselves. They kept lower level tacticians in their entourage to micromanage. Everyone has advisers. Germany lost because they were outmatched in money, army size, technology.
Germany in general had better technology throughout the course of WW2. Just as examples the Messerschmitt Me 262(first mass production jet fighter), V-2 Rockets(world's first production combat ballistic missile), and Tiger 2 Tank(most individually powerful tank of the war). They just didn't necessarily have the production capability in the latter stages of the war to truly exploit that advantage. Anyways I think this is a troll post Hitler wasn't a general, so huge derail.
|
On September 06 2011 02:56 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 02:34 Mjolnir wrote:On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents. Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general. What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions. You say that, but it isn't like any of these generals lead by themselves. They kept lower level tacticians in their entourage to micromanage. Everyone has advisers. Germany lost because they were outmatched in money, army size, technology.
Hitler was terrible general in nearly any area you want to judge generals in, but I doubt you can actually call him general at all as he never was one.
|
On September 06 2011 03:03 DminusTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 02:56 NoobSkills wrote:On September 06 2011 02:34 Mjolnir wrote:On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents. Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general. What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions. You say that, but it isn't like any of these generals lead by themselves. They kept lower level tacticians in their entourage to micromanage. Everyone has advisers. Germany lost because they were outmatched in money, army size, technology. Germany in general had better technology throughout the course of WW2. Just as examples the Messerschmitt Me 262(first mass production jet fighter) V-2 Rockets, Tiger 2 Tank(Most individually powerful tank of the war. They just didn't necessarily have the production capability in the latter stages of the war to truly exploit that advantage. Anyways I think this is a troll post Hitler wasn't a general, so huge derail.
Their technology was better in some areas worse in others. Nuclear research, computers, radars all worse for Germans. It is more like they had sometimes better designs not technology, but in war better weapon does not mean that you win, you have to be able to produce it easily, repair it easily and it cannot fail to often. Tigers and Panthers were great tanks, but hard to produce. One can argue that germans might have done much better if they kept producing and upgrading Panzer IV tanks as they were good enough and easier to produce and much more reliable in the field. And for first few years of the war T-34 was better tank than anything Germans had.
Also calling Me-262 mass produced in the context of WW2 is misleading considering how little number of them was built and they were in many parameters worse than non-jet fighters of the time.
In rockets they really had technological edge, but V2 rockets did not really achieve much.
|
On September 06 2011 01:58 Puph wrote:Patton all the way. Prove me wrong
Rommel would like a word.
|
On September 06 2011 03:03 DminusTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 02:56 NoobSkills wrote:On September 06 2011 02:34 Mjolnir wrote:On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents. Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general. What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions. You say that, but it isn't like any of these generals lead by themselves. They kept lower level tacticians in their entourage to micromanage. Everyone has advisers. Germany lost because they were outmatched in money, army size, technology. Germany in general had better technology throughout the course of WW2. Just as examples the Messerschmitt Me 262(first mass production jet fighter) V-2 Rockets, Tiger 2 Tank(Most individually powerful tank of the war. They just didn't necessarily have the production capability in the latter stages of the war to truly exploit that advantage. Anyways I think this is a troll post Hitler wasn't a general, so huge derail.
The T-34 was arguably a much better tank. Trough half of the war the German Tanks were inferior and for the later tanks they weren't able to truly mass-produce them and they weren't as reliable. The German Army was just much better organized within it's different branches (in the beginning), the coordination of tanks, infantry and aircrafts was top notch. Also other stuff missed for German soldiers namely winter clothing (which put a severe toll on them) or that most of the artillery was moved by horses which were sent back west during the winter when the encirclement of stalingrad happened which resulted in huge material loss.
The rockets weren't really important for the war and the lost the air battle for England, so it's arguable to say that they were that advanced.
And Hitler was obviously no General, but he took a very large role in deciding what happens strategically. His Generals had to argue EVERY step with Hitler himself. This lead for example to the battle of Stalingrad.
The invicibilty and the strength of the German Army is a propaganda myth, the SU was at least on par with them. In '41 they got rocked but Germany couldn't take advantage out of it. Also Germany never had the manpower to win against the SU, partly because the troops of their allies were mostly extremly inferior (Italians, Romanians for example).
|
Japan was fighting well before Europe descended into WWII.
|
On September 06 2011 03:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 03:03 DminusTerran wrote:On September 06 2011 02:56 NoobSkills wrote:On September 06 2011 02:34 Mjolnir wrote:On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents. Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general. What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions. You say that, but it isn't like any of these generals lead by themselves. They kept lower level tacticians in their entourage to micromanage. Everyone has advisers. Germany lost because they were outmatched in money, army size, technology. Germany in general had better technology throughout the course of WW2. Just as examples the Messerschmitt Me 262(first mass production jet fighter) V-2 Rockets, Tiger 2 Tank(Most individually powerful tank of the war. They just didn't necessarily have the production capability in the latter stages of the war to truly exploit that advantage. Anyways I think this is a troll post Hitler wasn't a general, so huge derail. Their technology was better in some areas worse in others. Nuclear research, computers, radars all worse for Germans. It is more like they had sometimes better designs not technology, but in war better weapon does not mean that you win, you have to be able to produce it easily, repair it easily and it cannot fail to often. Tigers and Panthers were great tanks, but hard to produce. One can argue that germans might have done much better if they kept producing and upgrading Panzer IV tanks as they were good enough and easier to produce and much more reliable in the field. And for first few years of the war T-34 was better tank than anything Germans had. Also calling Me-262 mass produced in the context of WW2 is misleading considering how little number of them was built and they were in many parameters worse than non-jet fighters of the time. In rockets they really had technological edge, but V2 rockets did not really achieve much.
Thanks for the reply, but you seem to be arguing a lot of points I didn't make. I already said that Germany had production problems that limited the success of said technology, though perhaps I didn't really elaborate enogh. All in all though I appreciate your post, because I it makes me realize I was incorrect in saying that Germany, most often had the "better" technology as it was often not put to use well, hard to maintain, and plagued with early generational problems. So really what I should have said is that often they had the more, "advanced technology". Key being more advanced not always being superior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
