Greatest military leader?

[Dante]

Goering sat on his fat ass all day doing nothing.  The Luftwaffe had a massive air advantage but still couldn't beat the RAF.

Well actually estimates are that one more week of effort by the German air force would have crushed the RAF... but they had held out so well beforehand that Hitler decided it wasn't worth it.

Or at least that's what I've learned.

[Terror]

Hmm it's hard to tell. But i don't think the germans realy had that much chance to win the war against the world. Even though they captured most of Europe, had a devastating assault vs. Russia and almost collapsed Brittain.

EVEN though Japan made a crippling blow against the US. The Germans were just at a sheer disadvantage in numbers. Both the US and Russia were far from defeated. Keep in mind that the cold war started shortly after WW2.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

but if germany only waged war against for example the USA, would they have won? or perhaps only against the soviet union?

[Dunenewt]

They wouldn't have beaten either of them due to the vast distances involved.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

The Russians would've been crushed if the allies didn't helped.

How is Rommel a bad leader? He defeated the enemy in the most weirdest situations.  ::)

Obviously, numbers won't decide the outcome of a battle.

Once again, take a look at Ghenghis Khan.

In war, the quality, tactical strength can decide the outcome of the battle. Especially if the enemy has a certain weakness to exploit.

[GhostHunter]

Well actually estimates are that one more week of effort by the German air force would have crushed the RAF... but they had held out so well beforehand that Hitler decided it wasn't worth it.

Or at least that's what I've learned.

Not true, the Germans possibly could of defeated Britain (by air) if Hitler wasn't such a bad military Commander that relied on his Generals. Germany was hitting British airfields and production and slowly tearing down the British, but a few ineffective British raids on German cities made Hitler change his target to British cities which gave the RAF a constant place to reload, repair, etc, and continue a consistent defense.

but if germany only waged war against for example the USA, would they have won? or perhaps only against the soviet union?

They would of won niether. The U.S was a industrial superpower that would be uncontested once awoke. You have to remember the main factor was American forces in the victory against Germany (not to disclude British forces, but the U.S were more in numbers and supplies, weapons, etc) all while fighting a heavy war against Japan in the Pacific. In regards to the Soviet Union - they wouldn't have won that either. The main factor that even allowed the Germans to penetrate the Russian boarders was Stalin's ignorance and madman-like tactics. Further more, everything turned against Germany when Russia called in their reserves. They had more men, and better tanks, if the need arose they could of done the same against a German airforce.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I think that germany acctually could have taken the USA. Germany had an army larger than the USA, and they would have the element of surprise. acctually if the USA didn't have any allies I think they could have done it.

[nemafakei]

Uh, there's a slight question of logistics... How?

[Emperor Harkonnen]

well germany had an army of 10 million soldiers, which I think USA did not. also they were technologically above them. this is just what I think.

[nemafakei]

Yes, and the logistics question?

[Dunenewt]

With their sub launched missiles and supersonic nuclear bombers.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Invading USA is almost impossible. Just think about it. Germany would have to fight with their ships, airplanes, shore defenses etc.

Even if Germany has penetrated their way into their defenses, supplies, ammo and the large landscape might pose as a constant obstacle.

As for Russia, Germany could easily beat the Russians if they fought them without any other enemies.

[leo]

Germany could have attacked USA from Japan.

[exatreide]

no they couldnt of...becouse japan itself couldnt attack america from japan!

[Dante]

Why not? Carriers and ships, long range aeroplanes, they could have got there...

[Caid Ivik]

They could isolate USA by taking control of european markets. That would crush them in a decade. Also, main goal in fight against USA and Britain wasn't total conquest with enslavement of population like he proclaimed to do with slavonic nations, but simply to crush them to knees, defeat them like they did it with Germany in WW1. Only to defeat, not destroy them.

[Dunenewt]

Japan did attack America, only on the Aleutian Islands, and Honolulu, Hawai'i, but it was still possible.  If they took more of the Aleutian Islands, they could then easily attack Alaska, and the rest of the American Mainland.

[Edric O]

My favourite commander of all times is without question Georgi K. Zhukov. He organized the defences of Moscow and part of the assault on Stalingrad, and he was the supreme commander for the battles of Kursk and Berlin.

You see, unlike Rommel, Zhukov actually won. ;)

The Germans could have won the war, despite the problems that they encountered.

You do of course realize that such a victory would have meant a dystopian nightmare, right? Everything ever done by the puny dictators on both sides of the Cold War was nothing compared to the living hell the Nazis wanted to unleash.

If you think the Holocaust was bad, you should see what they were preparing to do after the war.

As for Russia, Germany could easily beat the Russians if they fought them without any other enemies.

Heh, I really doubt that. Germany concentrated the vast majority of its resources against the Soviet Union. Operation Barbarossa was the greatest land invasion in history, and the battles on the Eastern Front make the West and North Africa look like friendly picnics.

The Russians (and most Eastern Europeans, in fact) were fighting for their lives, for the very survival of their people.

[Mahdi]

Japan did attack America, only on the Aleutian Islands, and Honolulu, Hawai'i, but it was still possible.

[exatreide]

My favourite commander of all times is without question Georgi K. Zhukov. He organized the defences of Moscow and part of the assault on Stalingrad, and he was the supreme commander for the battles of Kursk and Berlin.

You see, unlike Rommel, Zhukov actually won. ;)

You do of course realize that such a victory would have meant a dystopian nightmare, right? Everything ever done by the puny dictators on both sides of the Cold War was nothing compared to the living hell the Nazis wanted to unleash.

If you think the Holocaust was bad, you should see what they were preparing to do after the war.

Heh, I really doubt that. Germany concentrated the vast majority of its resources against the Soviet Union. Operation Barbarossa was the greatest land invasion in history, and the battles on the Eastern Front make the West and North Africa look like friendly picnics.

The Russians (and most Eastern Europeans, in fact) were fighting for their lives, for the very survival of their people.

Theirs nothing speical about Zhukov, he was no stratigiest, His battle tactics consisted of massive artilery bombardment, tank and infantry charge. Nothing speical no coy, If Rommel faught Zhukov in Russia, If Rommel had been the one at Kursk or Stalingrad. It would have been drasticly different. He gave the British a hell of a licking even when running! Rommel was brilent. Zhukov was a brute.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

My favourite commander of all times is without question Georgi K. Zhukov. He organized the defences of Moscow and part of the assault on Stalingrad, and he was the supreme commander for the battles of Kursk and Berlin.

You see, unlike Rommel, Zhukov actually won. ;)

But Rommel has won battles even with the odds against him. The Germans in Russia had logistical problems, supply problems(Partizans and the like) and second, the German division received an inexperienced commander thanks to the tard hitler..(A fatal mistake made by Hitler)

[Edric O]

Theirs nothing speical about Zhukov, he was no stratigiest, His battle tactics consisted of massive artilery bombardment, tank and infantry charge. Nothing speical no coy, If Rommel faught Zhukov in Russia, If Rommel had been the one at Kursk or Stalingrad. It would have been drasticly different. He gave the British a hell of a licking even when running! Rommel was brilent. Zhukov was a brute.

Last time I checked, there was no artillery bombardment at Kursk, and there wasn't anything to bombard at Stalingrad, and... well, you get the point. Furthermore, Zhukov's opponents were far superior to Rommel. Take Guderian, for example.

Zhukov's strategy consisted of using all the resources he had available to him in order to pound the enemy to bits. You call that brutish, I call that effective. Certainly more effective than Rommels's little game of hide and seek in the desert.

Rommel was no great commander. He was very charismatic and knew how to inspire his men, but Montgomery and Patton out-classed him.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Last time I checked, there was no artillery bombardment at Kursk, and there wasn't anything to bombard at Stalingrad, and... well, you get the point. Furthermore, Zhukov's opponents were far superior to Rommel. Take Guderian, for example.

Zhukov's strategy consisted of using all the resources he had available to him in order to pound the enemy to bits. You call that brutish, I call that effective. Certainly more effective than Rommels's little game of hide and seek in the desert.

Rommel was no great commander. He was very charismatic and knew how to inspire his men, but Montgomery and Patton out-classed him.

The Germans bombarded Stalingrad to millions of pieces. And if Rommel was in charge, he would knew what tactic to pick if his men was stormed by "Zhukov's" strategy. He would've retaliated with a quick effective attack of whatsoever.

Didn't Rommel used the enviroment and the present resources to get himself out of the situations? He was very 'resourceful'

And Rommel was very specialized at sneak attacks, stealth, mobility.

If he was such a bad commander, he would've lost against the british.  ;)

[exatreide]

Last time I checked, there was no artillery bombardment at Kursk, and there wasn't anything to bombard at Stalingrad, and... well, you get the point. Furthermore, Zhukov's opponents were far superior to Rommel. Take Guderian, for example.

Zhukov's strategy consisted of using all the resources he had available to him in order to pound the enemy to bits. You call that brutish, I call that effective. Certainly more effective than Rommels's little game of hide and seek in the desert.

Rommel was no great commander. He was very charismatic and knew how to inspire his men, but Montgomery and Patton out-classed him.

Saying someone is a great general becouse they have to get 10 people to overun 4 to achive victory is not a good general.

A good General is someone who can get 4 men to overrun 10.

Infantry charges stop being effective in World war one...Zhukov still used them thats why 4,000 germans would die in a battle at 13,000 rusians would die in the battle. Saying that he is a good comander is nonesense. Rommel was a good commander, Charismatic with his troops and smart. Zhukov Got all of his men together and Attacked. No tact no stratgey. Plainfully small.

If I was a soldier in world war two, and had to pick ROmmel or Zhukov I would pick Rommel, Rommel was at the front lines, not 25 miles behind them resting in a mansion. He cared about his men and would not send them on a infantry charge to their death.

Rommel's lead the 7th panzer division into france, and moved so rapidly against the enemy that German HQ named the 7th Panzer, the ghost division cause they couldnt keep track of it.

Rommel lead in infantry division against the Romanians in the first world war, And defeated a force several times his size.

Rommel lead troops into Italy in the first world war, broke the stailmate and drove the Italions back several miles. Saying that they were picking up more italion prisinors then he had heard bullets fired.

Your telling me that a brute like Zhukov who would rather waste human lives to achive a objective is a better general then rommel? Pleeeze!

[Wolf]

In the deserts of North Africa, Rommel would cut water from his own rations so that even the prisoners had enough to drink. He made sure that each and every man under his command, or under his care, was well taken care of. Rommel = good manager. Good leader. He was the last of the German knights, and knew the true meaning of war. In fact, his book, Krieg ohne Hass, or, "War without hate", proves that the man had a sense of higher moral virtues -- a man who fought for his country, not for Hitler.