Worst Military Leader of all Time

klaz quote:
I'm sorry but i must admit i'm not following.

yea I see that. While germany was building up its forces for the war, so were the russians. The germans were further advanced than the russians in 1939 but by 1943 when Hitlers planned revamp of the army would have been finnished the russians would have been further advanced. If russia could have finnished its own upgrade of its army without being interupted by war, by 1945 it would have a huge, well equiped and technologically advanced army.

As for germany teaming up with britain and france in such a case, you could also argue that russia could team up with japan and divide asia and the pacific between them. They might then invade australia, eastern europe and africa. If america remains neutral and concentrates on defending s. america and builing up its defences to the east then you'd have 1984!

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts.....

The worst military leader of all time was Maggie Thatcher in case anyone didnt notice she thought she was an army general.Just ask people from Wales/miner strike Argentina/War and Ireland/hunger strike.What can I say the most inhumane women in history worse than Hitler or Mussolini.

i would agree with hilter and haig and been the worst two promient 20th century military leaders.

someone said that hilter was a political leader and not a military leader however he did act in both capicaties so i think he would qualify.

germany had a brillant military machine at the out break of war with brillant generals, shame about the leader though.

i think if hilter had let military matters more up to his generals who were well capable of the job and did not interfere i think the end outcome would be different. his intervention in the russian conflict was detramintal to the german war effort

i wont start speculating on if this had happened then this would not of and so on.

all the points you say are fair and true but if look at how the germans revolutionised tank warfare by forming them up into mass pansier divisions and combining them with their air force with spectacular results. the mere fact that they swepted through western europe decimating their enemies in the process shows how sucessful this policy(blitzkreig) really.

i would agree that the russian t-34 tanks were better than the german tiger tanks but russia failed to deploy their tanks to make them an effective elment that could win a battle like the germans of did. the british Matildas were effectively useless heaps of metal that might take a bit of a beating but they had a useless gun turrent and the speed was terrible.

as you said in north africa monty did beat rommel but i dont think its fair to say that monty beat rommel tatically because the fact of the matter is that monty had a huge supply of arms coming in from america whos industrial might was thrown behind the british war effort and rommel could bearly get any resources from germany due to most of it going to the russian front and if he did it had to pass threw a powerful mediterran blockade. i think rommel is one of the best military commanders of our time and the circumstances were out of his control. if he managed to get resources i think the outcome of the north africa campain would be alot different.

navally germany had never been a match for britain because the british have always seen their security in their navy(winston curchills two power standard) and always had a superior strength than any other european country. but germany did inflict some key defeats on the british navy making them lose there feeling of inviciblaty on the high seas with the sinking of the hood, the pride of the british navy and the submarine war in which the germans praticed a war of attrition on the british mercant shipping. however as the war progressed the full might of the british navy got the better hand and some key techological advances meant that britain got the upper hand in the submarine war. however ever since then britain lost its role as the main naval super power.

i think that the prove in the pudding of the german war machine is how it managed to conduct a war on so many fronts and againist the strongest alliance the world could produce(russia,america and britain) for such a long period of time and if their missile project had been further along whose to say what
the outcome might of been.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
A Mediterranean blockade? Do you forget the German conquest of Greece, Cyprus and the absolute battering that Malta took?

there might not have been a water tight naval blockade but by the stage when rommel and monty were fighting in north africa british naval power was by far superior in the med. even though malta took a beating it stilled remained in british hands. britain always retained gilbraltar and fortified it up to the hilt so that germany could not move its alantic navy into mediterran or a large amount of its submarines in. this meant that german occupation of greece and cyprus were useless in terms of there naval impact in the key year of 1943



This is irrelevent; at no time could Germany have won the war once convoy shipping began; the losses to the German U-boat fleet were unsustainable and the sinking of the Bismark effectively marked the end of Germany's attempt to grab the seas.

i think it is relevent because the germans did sucessfully disrupt british maratime and if hilter had maybe placed more emphesis on building up his submarine corp and surface vessels britain would have been hurting a lot more at sea.



Wrong. The enemies that Germany excelled against were outdated years before the advent of blitzkreig (which was a Russian idea by the way) - for example the Polish and the French armies still utilised the ancient stationary gun-emplacements-and-fortress battle lines which were entirely undermined when paratroopers came on the scene - and paratroopers were not restricted to the German army either. All I have to say is Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn.`

yes Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn were a sucess in the way they encircled the german 6th army but with the italian 8th army what chance did they stand of breaking out or of hoth breaking in.



Stalin's coups prevented 'deep operations' coming to the fore in the Russian tactical rulebook (because Stalin's crony Voroshilov oh he of Finnish War infamy was not in favour of it) and despite the fact that Stalin had executed plenty of the young blood of his army in 1938, they still were pulled around by Zhukov and annihilated the 4th Panzer Army and 6th Army at Stalingrad plus defeated an overstrength Leibstandarte division later in the Winter of '43.
Zhukov was definately a great military leader but part of the reason why the germans lost the battle of stalingrad was the fact that hilter intervened directly in the battle not allowing a tatical retreat which General Friedrich Paulus favoured. so the germans had to fight street to street urban warfare which they were not used to and with the fanactial attitude of the russians because the city bore the name of their leader the battle was eventually won.

No you said that if Hitler had left decisions to his generals, then the war could have been won; this is not the case; the German officer corp were severely anti-bolshevist and wanted to destroy Russia also - they would have invaded, with or without the Balkan campaign and if they had made the invasion of Russia without the Balkan campaign, then Russia might have been worse hit but Britain would have been in a much better position in North Africa and the Mediterranean - and the landings at Dieppe may have ended up landing in Taranto given the deployment of German troops!

i think you misunderstand me, i do not mean that decision like were they were going to evade would be left up to the generals, what i meant was operational decisions during the battle were hilter intervened and made a mess. this was evendent in the battle of stalingrad.the Caucasuses oil fields seemed to be at Hitler's mercy. Then he changed his mind and ordered part of the forces that were to occupy them to the siege of Stalingrad instead. By diverting them to this ultimately futile attack Hitler wrecked the Caucasus campaign, which had a good chance of success. the battle of stalingrad was the verdun of the second world war and should never have been entered into the way it was by germany.

From 1942 Hitler had lost the war. Germany versus Britain and Russia alone would have lost the war simply because Russia was too big for 4 million men to conquer and Britain's empire would have held out.

i would disagree with this. i think germany had a lot of luck on the eastern front. hilter thought that he could have a quick campain in russia and his forces where not able to deal with the russian winter which played a major part in their down fall. i will not say that if the germans had not invaded russia they would have won because the invasion was inveitable. if hilter had devouted more resources to the submarine war germany would have tightened the noose on britain effectively strangling it.

eomer, im sorry, but ive had enough of youre insulting the german army. my grandfather and his brothers fought in the war ( im german by the way), and all of them tell stories of how they took out something like 6 shermans a day in their stug 3. if the german army was so crap, they wouldnt have held out against the WORLD for three years.

generalizing nonsense? everything everyone else says is nonsense to you isnt it?

Best Tank of WW2....T34
Best all round Plane of WW2...IL2
Best General of WW2....Zhukov
Greatest Production of Planes and Tanks...Russia
Greatest source of ManPower....Russia

No second World War...no beef between Russia and USA...due to Japan being between their interests....

The Sturmovik was a piece of **** compared to the British planes.
Greatest Source of manpower was China.
Best general, I absolutely agree, greatest production was actually the USA.

The Russians and the Americans would have clashed over ideological concerns; American political thought has always been dominated by realism and a Russia with access to the Indian Ocean as Imperial Russia had always wanted did not bear thinking about - which is precisely what a dominant Russia would have wanted.

Quoted from SearrarD
omfg....does a change of General staff change anything to do with the task of defending the motherland?

One word. Finland. It was Voroshilov who started out in charge of the Soviet Army, so foregoing a German invasion would mean it was still he, not Zhukov who would have lead any invasion of Western Europe.

Quoted from SearrarD
The enemy is the same, the borders are the same, the army/equipment is the same...different people have to mange the new task...but ultimatly all strategic decisions were Stalins...it was his finger on the map and that was as to be done!

Wrong, it was not Stalins hand on the map come the more successful periods of the second world war - hence he launched a new purge after the war to clean out the Generals he thought had made names for themselves.

Quoted from SearrarD
I'ds say that USA would have let Japan and Russia piss each other off...and would Niels Bohr have bothered his arsed to create such weapons..if Einstein hadn't goaded FDR into the idea in the first place...commiting USA to a European war is no easy feat and Russia could not have the resources to piss them off

USA would have pushed for peace and Russia....considering the logistics of attacking on a new Landmass...Stalin would have took it with a sneery smile......



now after I have disected that Turd of a post....you go and say that Germany would have been a pushover by Russian Standards...

IF Hitler had not attacked Poland and Russia had instead attacked Germany, given that Russian tactics were still based on lining up troops rather than proper tactical positions (except in Southern Russia / Ukraine), Russia would have had to go through Poland - which is another enemy on to the list - and Rumania, and Antonescu would have been quaking had there even been a hint of a full scale invasion; the Germans would have been well readied. The Russians were in no way prepared to fight a war - and while fighting a war anyway, they would have removed the troops from the East, knowing from Richard Sorge that the Japs would go after the US islands that ringed them in - as well as striking south for Singapore and the British territories.

With this in mind, consider that Britain, faced with an attack in the East and a possible threat to the continental balance of power (a model she followed assiduously) from Russia, whatever the protestations of Winston Churchill, might have decided that the best way to save her own empire was to forge an alliance of necessity as she had so often done in the past; with Germany, France and the USA - some allies in one theatre, others in another. And don't forget that Italy and Romania, (ever vengeful after Russia seized her north-eastern oilfields) and Bulgaria would have been allied against a Russian incursion, disgusted even more by 'bolshevism' than by Nazism, which as we know many members of both French and British governments sympathised with.

Russia, while producing plenty had not the resources to fight Germany alone in the beginning - and by the time she would have been ready to fight Germany properly (ie after the same initial shock of losing so many battles had worn off enough to allow Stalin to change STAVKA around and re-institute single-heirarch command), the other western powers would have been looking to the east with fear and apprehension - possibly enough to catapult them into the war. Stalin was prepared to sacrifice the Ukraine whole to stave off an invasion; with that thought in mind remember that Russia was not capable of fighting an offensive war had there not been a second world war.

With the USA, China, Britain and France slowly but surely bleeding Japan dry in the east and with their own armies more than likely bogged down in the west due to the same problems of supply that they faced on the drive the Berlin and given that the Germans would have had a much better organised fighting force in a war fought without Stalingrad, the Soviets would have realised they were going nowhere - and that if Japan was defeated, she might face a two prong counter-attack. The USA having been at war with Japan would have developed the nuclear bomb - and probably still even have dropped it on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, leaving the Russians no chance in hell.

One last thing, your little declamations are entirely puerile so I suggest you take some time to grow up before you reply.

Quoted from SearrarD
READ MY DAMN POST BEFORE YOU REPLY PLEASE!

Now now child, you must learn to keep your temper.

Quoted from SearrarD
China wasnt a GOD DAMN country at this stage...(please say you are not counting Mao)

Sorry, why wasn't China a country yet?

Quoted from SearrarD
Strategic Decisions are are the goals made out by Stalin...the General staff must complete them...

USA and Russia were on friendly terms withregards to japan

No, strategic goals could be made by anyone, they just had to have Stalin's approval.

And no, one of the first thing any GCSE student learns about the second world war is that the USA decided to use the atom bomb in part because they wanted to keep Russia out of Japan, despite their earlier hope that Russia would aid them. They were already pissed off at the Russian march of Manchuria - in fact that laid the foundations for the Korean War.

Quoted from Spoiirt
you see, what eomers problem is, is that he isnt able to just give facts, he has to put some stupid quip in after he makes his point. makes him feel big. and its perfectly safe for him to do it , cos its on the internet. of course if he were talking to someone face to face, he naturally wouldnt have the bottle to say that, which makes him not only a hippocrit, but also very sad.

so eomer post your little comeback, and feel safe, you sad little man.

I'm sorry Spoiirt, I didn't mean to tread on your insecurity complex.

Originally posted by SearrarD
Ground Control to Major Èomer...

The Republic of China (1911-49)

1931 Japan occupied Manchuria
1937- 45 Sino-Japanese War

I wouldnt so much as call it a war, but foreign occupation seems to take a country out of world standings in terms of industry, military but not politics.....

Conquered and rebelled chinese got their independence in 1945 after Japan's surrender to the USA.....àlthough fighting an Axis power they had nothing to offer the Allies efforts

WTF?
GCSE students make baby Jebus cry!

Please back up that wild accusation por favor!

China was in the midst of civil war (Gen Chiang Kai Chek vs Mao) when the Japanese invaded Manchuria. Before that, the last emperor fell because of the Boxer Rebellion in 1902 which resulted in a fragile government that European colonial powers tried to manipulate. Chek and Mao combined their forces through a temporary peace to resist the invaders. It is true that China did not have the tanks and airplanes to complete with Japan, but it was still a very real war of attrition. Talk to any Chinese whose forefathers were involved in WWII, and they will say it was a real war. And contrary to what you may have learned, only the coastal cities with their surrounding areas and Manchuria were completely conquered. Central (Mao) and southern (Chek) China were not. One proof is the American Volunteer Group of Col. Charles Chenault (The Flying Tigers) that fought the Japanese in several significant air campaigns.

Best General
I am going to use a different approach and talk about tactical genius. I would put three in this category: Yamamato who revolutionized naval combat by making the carrier, not the battleship, the premier weapon, Chenault who revolutionized air combat tactics, and Rommel who epitimized blitzkrieg tactics to an art form. Close second include Patton, Zhukov, Bradley, Montgomery, Hap Arnold, and Nimitz. World War II probably had the greatest number of innovative combat commanders since the war has been studied.

Best "Plane"
You are going to have to have three categories here: fighter, bomber, and fighter-bomber.
Fighter: In the early part of the war, it was the Spitfire, Me 109, and the Zero (type 21). Later part of the war, it was the P-51 Mustang, with a metro-merlyn engine, and the P-47 Thunderbolt

Bomber: It has to be the B-17 Flying Fortress and the British Lancaster bombers. Close second include the B-24 and B-29 as well as the numerous medium bombers that dominated World War II.

Fighter-bomber: This is a tough one, but it goes to the British Typhoon and the Russian Il-2. Both of these planes were built with the specific purpose of close air combat support and tank busters.

Best Tank
There were three types of tanks in World War II: main battle tank, infantry support tank, and scout tank. I know there were hybrids like the Panther and KV-2, but these were more likely armoured defense busters than anything elses.

Main Battle Tank: Since there were only two in World War II, Tiger and the T-34, the winner will have to go to the T-34. It had slightly better armour and endurance while the Tiger was the "Mercedes" version of all tanks.

Infantry Support Tank: The M-4 Sherman, M-3 Lee, Matilda, Churchill, Mark iv and Mark iii tanks were all equally good, but the best infantry support tank has to go to the Sherman. It had better armament and armour for the task, but was not a main battle tank. It cannot knock out any Tiger or T-34, but was primarily used to support infantry when attacking defenses, like that of the old tanks in WWI.

Scout Tanks: The only one that I can cite from memory is the M2 Stuart. However, scout tanks were not used very much and the only reason why I put this category here was because they were used intermittenly in various battles in the European and Pacific theater.

sorry i took a while to reply, didnt have internet access

Originally posted by spanner
A Mediterranean blockade? Do you forget the German conquest of Greece, Cyprus and the absolute battering that Malta took?
so are you trying to tell me that the german navy was in control of the mediterranean? because i think you should definately do your homework there, there might not have been a water tight naval blockade on the part of the british but by the stage when rommel and monty were fighting in north africa british naval power was by far superior in the med. even though malta took a beating it stilled remained in british hands. britain always retained gilbraltar and fortified it up to the hilt so that germany could not move its alantic navy into mediterran or a large amount of its submarines in. this meant that german occupation of greece and cyprus were useless in terms of there naval impact in the key year of 1943



This is irrelevent; at no time could Germany have won the war once convoy shipping began; the losses to the German U-boat fleet were unsustainable and the sinking of the Bismark effectively marked the end of Germany's attempt to grab the seas.

i think it is relevent because the germans did sucessfully disrupt british maratime machine and if hilter had maybe placed more emphesis on building up his submarine corp and surface vessels britain would have been hurting a lot more at sea. It is very relevant because the german naval campain severely affected the british war machine and the british civilian life with rations been imposed. I think if it hadnt been for the british cracking the german engima code the naval battle might of turned out a lot different.



Wrong. The enemies that Germany excelled against were outdated years before the advent of blitzkreig (which was a Russian idea by the way) - for example the Polish and the French armies still utilised the ancient stationary gun-emplacements-and-fortress battle lines which were entirely undermined when paratroopers came on the scene - and paratroopers were not restricted to the German army either. All I have to say is Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn.`

it is true to say that thepolish army wasnt as up to date as the germans but come on are you trying to tell me that france which would be considered as one of the top armies in the world were "outdated". I think you are arguing a losing battle to suggest that the german decimation of the entire french army, the british expenditionary force, the entire low lands,poland most of the balkans was nothing but spectatular. add to that europe was expecting this war for 8 years at least so france had plenty of time to prepare(even if the magnot line wasnt probably the best defence) its still no excuse to say the french and british were "outdated". they were considered the most powerful countries in europe.
yes Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn were a sucess in the way they encircled the german 6th army but with the italian 8th army what chance did they stand of breaking out or of the german general hoth breaking in.



Stalin's coups prevented 'deep operations' coming to the fore in the Russian tactical rulebook (because Stalin's crony Voroshilov oh he of Finnish War infamy was not in favour of it) and despite the fact that Stalin had executed plenty of the young blood of his army in 1938, they still were pulled around by Zhukov and annihilated the 4th Panzer Army and 6th Army at Stalingrad plus defeated an overstrength Leibstandarte division later in the Winter of '43.
no one denies Zhukov was definately a great military leader but i belive the the reason why the germans lost the battle of stalingrad was the fact that hilter intervened directly in the battle not allowing a tatical retreat which General Friedrich Paulus favoured. so the germans had to fight street to street urban warfare which they were not used to and with the fanactial attitude of the russians because the city bore the name of their leader the battle was eventually won.

No you said that if Hitler had left decisions to his generals, then the war could have been won; this is not the case; the German officer corp were severely anti-bolshevist and wanted to destroy Russia also - they would have invaded, with or without the Balkan campaign and if they had made the invasion of Russia without the Balkan campaign, then Russia might have been worse hit but Britain would have been in a much better position in North Africa and the Mediterranean - and the landings at Dieppe may have ended up landing in Taranto given the deployment of German troops!

i think you misunderstand me, i do not mean that decision like were they were going to evade would be left up to the generals, what i meant was operational decisions during the battle were hilter intervened and made a mess. this was evendent in the battle of stalingrad.the Caucasuses oil fields seemed to be at Hitler's mercy. Then he changed his mind and ordered part of the forces that were to occupy them to the siege of Stalingrad instead. By diverting them to this ultimately futile attack Hitler wrecked the Caucasus campaign, which had a good chance of success. the battle of stalingrad was the verdun of the second world war and should never have been entered into the way it was by germany.

i think this arguement you are trying to prusue that german military machine wasnt the best or even one of the best is going no were. russias size and variable weather conditions meant that even the best eurpean armies have not managed to conquer it.
[/B]