Great Military leaders of History? - Page 9

On February 15 2011 16:26 tree.hugger wrote:
I dunno, the capture of Moscow would've almost definitely led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not only was the Soviet Union a command and control economy/government where basically everything emanated out of Moscow, but Stalin was also holed up in the city determined to make his last stand there. Encircling and taking Moscow would basically cut off the head of the Soviet Union in every way imaginable. It's hard to think of a way they could've offered anything else but token resistance after that.

On February 15 2011 16:18 DrTJEckleburg wrote:


As a little aside here, I would argue that the Soviet Union is not the kind of nation that would not simply fall apart upon the capture of Moscow. Although it was the capital city, the people of Russia and the way of life there would make it very likely that they would remain stalwart in fighting the Germans(read: Partisan soldiers, sabotage, evacuation of industry eastward, etc.)

In addition, Stalin had actually anticipated a renewed offensive on Moscow in the early months of 1942 and concentrated a large number of divisions there. The break-out into the Caucasus and the Don was a harsh defeat for the Soviet Union.

On February 15 2011 17:04 Underwhelmed wrote:
As an aside, I see German WWII generals mentioned but why aren't there any Russian ones? It took them a while to learn from their mistakes, but after Stalingrad they pretty much outstrategized the Germans at every step. The German WWII generals are overrated as a whole because of the whole "Blame Hitler!" and "The Wehrmacht was just fighting for their country!" myth that sprouted after their defeat.

On February 15 2011 13:46 0mar wrote:
Hans Heinz Guderian. He basically invented modern warfare with combined arms tactics and the Blitzkrieg.

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.

On February 15 2011 17:04 Underwhelmed wrote:

Preparations were already underway for relocating everything from Moscow to another city (Tyumen? I don't exactly remember what city it was), but after successfully delaying the progress of the German offensive, Stalin felt confident enough to remain in Moscow. So, it wasn't quite his last resort, it was just where he decided to draw the line. It's also worth considering that Napoleon also took Moscow during his Russian campaign, and we all know how that turned out...

As an aside, I see German WWII generals mentioned but why aren't there any Russian ones? It took them a while to learn from their mistakes, but after Stalingrad they pretty much outstrategized the Germans at every step. The German WWII generals are overrated as a whole because of the whole "Blame Hitler!" and "The Wehrmacht was just fighting for their country!" myth that sprouted after their defeat.

On February 15 2011 16:26 tree.hugger wrote:

Montgomery probably takes the cake for the most overhyped general of all time. It's a shame that O'Connor was captured by the Germans and that Slim was fighting in the CBI sphere, because both were much much better than Montgomery.

I dunno, the capture of Moscow would've almost definitely led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not only was the Soviet Union a command and control economy/government where basically everything emanated out of Moscow, but Stalin was also holed up in the city determined to make his last stand there. Encircling and taking Moscow would basically cut off the head of the Soviet Union in every way imaginable. It's hard to think of a way they could've offered anything else but token resistance after that.

On February 15 2011 17:04 Underwhelmed wrote:

Preparations were already underway for relocating everything from Moscow to another city (Tyumen? I don't exactly remember what city it was), but after successfully delaying the progress of the German offensive, Stalin felt confident enough to remain in Moscow. So, it wasn't quite his last resort, it was just where he decided to draw the line. It's also worth considering that Napoleon also took Moscow during his Russian campaign, and we all know how that turned out...

As an aside, I see German WWII generals mentioned but why aren't there any Russian ones? It took them a while to learn from their mistakes, but after Stalingrad they pretty much outstrategized the Germans at every step. The German WWII generals are overrated as a whole because of the whole "Blame Hitler!" and "The Wehrmacht was just fighting for their country!" myth that sprouted after their defeat.

On February 15 2011 17:10 zatic wrote:

Answered right on page 1. As 0mar says, Guderian invented modern warfare. To this day there is no qualitative difference in the strategies and tactics modern first and second military powers employ to what Guderian proposed some 80 years ago.

For anyone truly interested in the subject I can recommend
"The Changing Face of War" by Martin van Crefeld
http://www.amazon.com/Changing-Face-War-Lessons-Combat/dp/0891419012/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297757057&sr=1-1

and (to a much lesser extend)
"History of Warfare" by John Keegan
http://www.amazon.com/History-Warfare-John-Keegan/dp/0679730826/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297757157&sr=1-1

The second one lacks the analytical sharpness with which Van Crefeld discusses the subject and is more interesting to get an overall idea. The Changing Faces of War is what I really recommend to anyone interested in recent military history up to the lessons from Iraq. Great read!

On February 15 2011 16:41 Belisarius wrote:
Me.

I totally did not register this account to post in this thread.