PDA

View Full Version : Best Generals in History ?



arthor
Friday, June 13th, 2008, 10:29 AM
cyfarchion

this is not meant to be a poll but I just want people's opinions on top generals

Some of my favourites

Wellington
Churchill
Haig
Monty
Model
von Manstein
Dietrich

There are a few more that should get some recognition not necessarily for field stuff but for when they became CIGS or similiar
What do you think

wasshael

SmokyGod
Monday, June 16th, 2008, 12:00 AM
Mannerheim was a badass motherf*cker

Patton was being held back by the PC police the whole f*cking war, he would've ran through europe and then ass-raped the Soviets, kept going on through the Chinks, swam across and invaded Japan while McArthur was still picking his nose and holding his dick, then land in Alaska and march the fuck down through Canada and take that, too. Great man.

Gorm the Old
Monday, June 16th, 2008, 02:03 AM
Erwin Rommel, "The Desert Fox" He was even respected by Field Marshal Montgomery, whose collosal ego left almost no room for regard for anyone else.

Gorm the Old
Monday, June 16th, 2008, 02:26 AM
Hannibal Barca. He kept the Roman general, Fabius ("Cunctator" = "The Delayer") chasing him all over Italy for years while Hannibal ravaged the countryside so that the Romans feared his memory long after his death. :O

If the Carthaginian senate had provided adequate support while he was in Italy, Hannibal could have conquered the whole Italian Peninsula, including Rome. :eek

SmokyGod
Monday, June 16th, 2008, 02:38 AM
its always the politics, isn't it :rolleyes:

Papa Koos
Monday, June 16th, 2008, 04:25 AM
General Stonewall Jackson, hands down. If Chancellorsville had been his only brilliant battle (which it wasn't) it alone would put him miles ahead of the others.

By the way Winston Churchill was only good at murdering civilians. May he roast! What a legacy:thumbsdow

Aragorn
Monday, June 16th, 2008, 10:25 AM
Guderian, he is one of my favourites. I can not sum up the best of the bests

Gagnraad
Tuesday, June 17th, 2008, 08:10 PM
I am somewhat surprised that no one have mentioned Der Führer.

Just out of curiousity, what do the good people of BuB think of him as a general?

Gorm the Old
Tuesday, June 17th, 2008, 08:34 PM
Well, I knew that he had been a Corporal, but was he really a General ?

Gagnraad
Tuesday, June 17th, 2008, 08:40 PM
Well, I knew that he had been a Corporal, but was he really a General ?
I don't know much about that, but what does it matter, when the man almost conquered Europe?

Papa Koos
Tuesday, June 17th, 2008, 11:48 PM
I am somewhat surprised that no one have mentioned Der Führer.

Just out of curiousity, what do the good people of BuB think of him as a general?

I think military leadership was his greatest weakness. Had he left the conduct of the war to his generals (and not his marionette NS party members), Germany would have fared much better.

Gorm the Old
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 03:04 AM
You're right, Koos. He certainly proved von Bismarck right when the old fellow said [not very originally] "The only thing that history teaches us is that history teaches us nothing."

It is known that Hitler studied Napoleon's campaigns. Yet, he went right ahead and repeated Napoleon's mistake in Russia. Perhaps he put too much faith in modern technology.

Anyhow, he certainly had better strategists serving under him than he was.
It has been alleged that one factor was his faith in the pronouncements of soothsayers. It often amazes me how gullible a man of his undeniably high intelligence could sometimes be.

SmokyGod
Thursday, June 19th, 2008, 06:02 AM
yeah, Hitler got his ass HANDED to him. Not for lack of trying, and certainly Germany is in a terrible geographic position to wage a pan-European war... but the man was fucked hard. Although i assume from what i hear it was partly his fault, maybe it wasn't... the fact is that only the outcome matters in the end, and in the end... he LOST. Certainly had he built up a better pre-war political foundation perhaps he would've fared better, introducing a Nazi party in the Nordic nations and cementing an alliance with the Scandanavians, presenting National Socialism as the West's defense against Communism (and then not attacking Poland, probably) there are a number of things Adolf Hitler could have done to prevent or delay a war with the West so that he could focus on the Mongol bastards, but we'll never know for sure if the war could've been won in the end. He made a good go of it, at least.

Sickens me to think we sided with the Soviets in that tiff... seriously fucked up set of circumstances. No doubt aggrivated by Hitler's (unknowing) methamphetamine habit. I've taken low doses of amphetamines and i can only imagine the combination of a full doseage of Speed and all that power... no wonder he was so eager to get the war rolling :rolleyes:

arthor
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008, 12:35 PM
cyfarchion

Not quite sure how these two ended up here. Both had a stab at it though. Dardanelles?? Fiasco or what. (Koos -Was I on a thread with you when the subject of murdering civilians by Churchill came up?). From a strategic point of view, eliminating a work force is a viable proposition.
Hitler had one or two moments but he really should have left it to his people. Guderian, as already mentioned, was top class. Kesselring never gets a mention but he too was very good indeed.
Patton??? Sorry Smoky God but Patton is not fit to wipe the boots of most top generals. I know Monty had an ego as big as a small planet but Patton's was larger. Monty cocked up Market Garden but apart from that he was brilliant. Brooke was a fine CIGS and I get the impression that Marshall also did a good job in the US.
Divisional commanders wise, I have always had a soft spot for Kurt Meyer despite his youth and short time in charge. A real warrior. Of course, as I named my last dog after him, I couldn't leave Sepp Dietrich out. Learned fast and had the respect of his men.

wasshael

Aragorn
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008, 08:08 PM
I don't know much about that, but what does it matter, when the man almost conquered Europe?

Well, with huge mistakes: Dunkirk, Stalingrad, just to mention a few.

Papa Koos
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008, 09:28 PM
Arthor wrote in part

(Koos -Was I on a thread with you when the subject of murdering civilians by Churchill came up?). From a strategic point of view, eliminating a work force is a viable proposition.
I'm sure this topic has come up in the past, and I probably responded very much the same there as here. Not only did Churchill wage total war against the German people he also gloried in it. Did you know he had a special room (off his war room) in which he displayed large photographs of post firebombed Dresden? He enjoyed giving tours through that hell he had created for the civilians of Dresden.

Do you, also, subscribe to the concept of "total war"? You wrote: From a strategic point of view, eliminating a work force is a viable proposition.

Yankee Generals Sherman and Sheridan brought this barbarous "strategy" to fruition against my country during our War for Southern Independence. They did a hell of a lot more than "eliminate a work force" and so did the beast Churchill.

I am deeply ashamed that Americans developed and implemented the enormity of warring on non combatants, and I regret that Europeans have stooped to adopt the practice.

SmokyGod
Friday, June 27th, 2008, 01:01 AM
Patton??? Sorry Smoky God but Patton is not fit to wipe the boots of most top generals.

you are basing your assertion on what, exactly?

Gorm the Old
Friday, June 27th, 2008, 01:50 AM
Dresden was massive retaliation for Coventry.

Papa Koos
Friday, June 27th, 2008, 06:23 AM
Dresden was massive retaliation for Coventry.

"Massive" is correct:

1,236 Englishmen died in the German bombing of Coventry.

200,000+ Germans died (were purposely burned alive) in the Aliied bombing of Dresden

Aragorn
Friday, June 27th, 2008, 10:52 PM
Dresden was massive retaliation for Coventry.


It was an act of crime. The most horrible warcrime reported in Modern history.

Papa Koos
Saturday, June 28th, 2008, 06:37 AM
Yes, the deliberate firebombing of German civilians (600,000 killed) and the post war intentional neglect of German POWs resulting in untold deaths truly are the worse war crimes of any era.

Angelcynn Beorn
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 04:59 PM
200,000+ Germans died (were purposely burned alive) in the Aliied bombing of Dresden

The figure is actually around 35,000 people killed during the bombing of Dresden, and that's from official third reich records of the time.

The very first action of the Luftwaffe in WW2 was to bomb civilian targets in the small Polish town of Wielun on September 2 1939. That the Allies returned the compliment with interest after having been on the receiving end, isn't surprising.

Papa Koos
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 07:38 PM
The figure is actually around 35,000 people killed during the bombing of Dresden, and that's from official third reich records of the time.

The very first action of the Luftwaffe in WW2 was to bomb civilian targets in the small Polish town of Wielun on September 2 1939. That the Allies returned the compliment with interest after having been on the receiving end, isn't surprising.

Welcome to BuB Angelcynn Beorn.

I have the good breeding not to be petulant with a new member, so I won't at this time argue the dubious merits of murdering non-combatants.

Besides, if we Europeans and European derived folks don't make a serious effort to "bury the hatchet" for the sake of our racial survival, we will end up in some very deep sh!t

Aragorn
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 07:53 PM
The figure is actually around 35,000 people killed during the bombing of Dresden, and that's from official third reich records of the time.

The very first action of the Luftwaffe in WW2 was to bomb civilian targets in the small Polish town of Wielun on September 2 1939. That the Allies returned the compliment with interest after having been on the receiving end, isn't surprising.


Any reliable source for your statement?

SmokyGod
Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008, 01:20 AM
personally i contend the the Second World War was really 2 convoluted struggles: a civil war between Germanic nations and a war against the Mongols. The civil war of course being Allies vs Germany and the war against the Mongols split into two main conflicts, Germany/Finland (and let us not forget the Cossacks and other White Russian elements) vs the Bolsheviks and Allies vs Japan.

of course the Bolsheviks (and the Allies, sadly) were united by a single alliegance but thats a story for another day...

arthor
Thursday, July 3rd, 2008, 05:53 PM
cyfarchion

Churchill in the original post is John Churchill. I don't consider Winston Churchill to be a general at all. Even when he was First Lord of the Admiralty he poked his nose in and was a pro Dardanelles man and look what a fiasco that was although the thinking behind it had merit.
John Churchill's Rhine march was a tremendous feat.
Patton was all "two up and bags of smoke", as we used to say when hairing recklessly across open ground in our Scimitars

wasshael

Gorm the Old
Thursday, July 3rd, 2008, 09:04 PM
Why is it that no one has even mentioned General Zhukov ? He was highly regarded as a general, not only in the Soyuz, but outside it. General Eisenhower praised him highly, saying in 1945, "One day there is certain to be another order of the Soviet Union. It will be the Order of Zhukov, and that order will be prized by every man who admires courage, vision, fortitude, and determination in a soldier."

Loyalist
Friday, July 4th, 2008, 02:16 AM
I would hesitate to hail Zhukov for true tactical abilities; he was successful when, facing a depleted and desperate enemy, numerical superiority was used to its full potential. With massive reserves of men and armour, Zhukov, like other Soviet commanders, paid little mind to potential losses in combat, and consistently acted in a reckless and impulsive manner in effort to win Stalin's favour over his peers. As was the situation across the board, forces under his command took horrifying and unnecessary casualties. On even terms, without the ridiculously inflated ranks of the Red Army, Zhukov would have struggled against even the most mediocre of German commanders.

Angelcynn Beorn
Thursday, July 24th, 2008, 10:53 PM
Welcome to BuB Angelcynn Beorn.

I have the good breeding not to be petulant with a new member, so I won't at this time argue the dubious merits of murdering non-combatants.

Besides, if we Europeans and European derived folks don't make a serious effort to "bury the hatchet" for the sake of our racial survival, we will end up in some very deep sh!t

I can live with that, and i do get tired of going over WW2 threads arguing about who the good guys and bad guys were again and again. But the stickler in me still doesn't like seeing inaccurate evidence being used to support claims, so i responded. Regardless, i hold no grudges about WW2 either way and have no axe to grind with National Socialism at all.

Papa Koos
Friday, July 25th, 2008, 03:47 AM
I can live with that, and i do get tired of going over WW2 threads arguing about who the good guys and bad guys were again and again. But the stickler in me still doesn't like seeing inaccurate evidence being used to support claims, so i responded. Regardless, i hold no grudges about WW2 either way and have no axe to grind with National Socialism at all.

Angelcynn, I think my intensity about the subject is the result of discovering at this late date that we WW2 era children were so thoroughly and (I think) deliberately lied to regarding causes, characters and crimes.

Also, there's a growing ambivalence within me since my own father was in the US Navy in the North Atlantic and at the same time his cousin was a German officer in a U-boat sinking Allied ships. Kinsmen trying to kill one another, and for what?! I am sick at heart over the 80 million members of our race who died in the 20th century's wars. Now we are seriously diminished and dangerously on the wan.

SmokyGod
Friday, July 25th, 2008, 07:28 AM
yep. Y'ever been to an Indian Reservation? they're just waiting to die. Its sad.

never let White culture get to that point. Never. The reason they lost so miserably is because they failed to consolidate their forces when the Spaniards and English came over here. Indians made a critical error in remaining divided. Let this mistake be recognized and avoided by the sons and daughters of Arminius.

Papa Koos
Friday, July 25th, 2008, 04:24 PM
yep. Y'ever been to an Indian Reservation? they're just waiting to die. Its sad.

never let White culture get to that point. Never. The reason they lost so miserably is because they failed to consolidate their forces when the Spaniards and English came over here. Indians made a critical error in remaining divided. Let this mistake be recognized and avoided by the sons and daughters of Arminius.

You absolutely right SmokyGod. Had the Indians picked the colonizers off one boatload at a time, the invading Europeans would have not been able to establish a beach head (so to speak).

SmokyGod
Friday, July 25th, 2008, 06:54 PM
i feel bad for them because i fear for us, I see their lives as a potential future for White civilization and I shudder... in 3,000 years I don't want some Stone Age bastard carrying a spear to walk by Mount Rushmore and wonder which mighty civilization erected that monument, i want us to be alive and kicking.


you dig?

Papa Koos
Friday, July 25th, 2008, 11:40 PM
i feel bad for them because i fear for us, I see their lives as a potential future for White civilization and I shudder... in 3,000 years I don't want some Stone Age bastard carrying a spear to walk by Mount Rushmore and wonder which mighty civilization erected that monument, i want us to be alive and kicking.


you dig?

You've been thoroughly dug! (although I doubt I'll be able to afford my medical insurance premiums if I live & kick that long.) :oldman