Poll: Best War Leader

[Triangulon]

And what has that got to do with being a good war leader or not?

I was in a ranting mood *shrug*, and one of the rants I have is against Montgomery (largely for his opinion of Auchinleck and how much of a pain it was to work alongside...).

Fair enough. I won't argue much. As a fellow brit I always feel the need to stick up for him a bit. In terms of WW2 I would say read up on 'Paddy' Mayne. He led the SAS after the capture of David Stirling. He comes across in the literature as a 'real-life' BJ Blazkowicz.

 

[Mcface]

In more modern times, the Nazi's collective leadship come to mind, the Blitzkrieg was insanely effective.

ISAF in iraq also come to mind, destroying the Iraqi army in a month. (the 5th largest growing army at the time)

Sun Tzu would probably take the cake for ancient warriors, though Alexander is arguably the better conqueror.

 

[Mcface]

man.....im afraid to say this...but its obvious.....Hitler.

Im sure its been said, but you are so wrong.
Hitler single handed lost the war. His generals had too little power to fight the war the way it should have been fought.

The invasion of Normandy would have been easily deterred if Hitler had responded faster, but his aides were too afraid to wake him. The generals needed Hitlers permission to move the reserve Panzerkompf forward to engage the 101st from behind, which would have crushed them, and allowed the beaches to hold the following day.

 

[funguy2121]

William Wallace, anyone?

Not really, his big plan was to funnel troops down a bridge. That's so Sparta

He had SO many more plans than that

 

[Kenko]

I by no means agree with his political views and ideals. But im going to have to go with Adolf Hitler. He pulled a country of the dirt, gave them pride, built up their country and then brought all of Europe too its knee's singlehandedly. Not a great strategist or tactician, but he was a great man and a great leader. Anyone who disagree's with that needs to read up on history

And Napoleon for obvious reasons. And no he wasn't short, thats british propaganda for you.

 

[Shirokurou]

I by no means agree with his political views and ideals. But im going to have to go with Adolf Hitler. He pulled a country of the dirt, gave them pride, built up their country and then brought all of Europe too its knee's singlehandedly. Not a great strategist or tactician, but he was a great man and a great leader. Anyone who disagree's with that needs to read up on history

He was iconic and exploited xenophobia and the butthurt after WWI. He did say "The most important thing in my office is that I have all the right men in the right places" so I'll give him that.

But fighting Russia, against the wisdom of Germany's unifier Bismarck i might add, really showed his short-sightedness.

Genghis Khan for my vote.

 

[SckizoBoy]

And Napoleon for obvious reasons. And no he wasn't short, thats british propaganda for you.

Heehee! Napoleon: 5'7", Lord Nelson: 5'4"

And to all those who said Hitler... *sigh*, he was good, yes, right up until September 1941 when the Battle of Britain started going half to hell. After that, he just didn't know when to shut up when talking to his military betters. Sure, he 'won' against Poland and the Czechoslovakia (tough opposition, eh?) and Manstein ('s plan) and allied pussyfooting around beat France (kudos to the Expeditionary Force for toughing it out). What makes him a bit crappy was that once the shit hit the fan, he honestly didn't know how to deal with it.

Napoleon, at least, was a tactical master, and if things had gone to plan, the Hundred Days could've ended soooo differently. But once again, this is open to conjecture (the main problem I find was that he should've just overridden Ney's orders and told d'Erlon exactly what to do, i.e. get your arse to Quatre Bras - I base this on his own confidence and the fact that we all know what happened at Ligny).

 

[Kenko]

I by no means agree with his political views and ideals. But im going to have to go with Adolf Hitler. He pulled a country of the dirt, gave them pride, built up their country and then brought all of Europe too its knee's singlehandedly. Not a great strategist or tactician, but he was a great man and a great leader. Anyone who disagree's with that needs to read up on history

He was iconic and exploited xenophobia and the butthurt after WWI. He did say "The most important thing in my office is that I have all the right men in the right places" so I'll give him that.

But fighting Russia, against the wisdom of Germany's unifier Bismarck i might add, really showed his short-sightedness.

Genghis Khan for my vote.

Argh! Forgot about Genghis! He was fething awesome. He unified the mongols and lol-raped most of the planet.

 

[aashell13]

More importantly, the Allied forces (predominantly, but not exclusively, the US) developed atomic bombs. As soon as that happened, the Axis powers could not win. The Aliies might have had to remove alot of Europe and the Pacific, but they'd win.

May i point out that the USA didnt join the war till after the battle of Britain. So if the Germans had made all the right decisions, like continuing to attack the RAF and the UK had fallen. Where would you have attacked Europe(Germany)from? As i doubt that there we any planes that could carry a nuke and make a round trip USA-Europe without refuelling in those days.

They'd presumably have to be carrier based, yes (alternatively, deployed by infiltration by submarine). But, assuming that to be impractical...if the US, with its massive increase in industry, couldn't reach Europe, then Europe probably couldn't reach the US, and the war wouldn't progress.

the early nukes were too heavy and too bulky to be carried by anything less than a quad engine strategic bomber like the B-29. there's absolutely no way planes like that could have been operated off of any carrier of the time. that said, if the British isles had fallen in '41, the US could still have mounted a campaign from Iceland and Greenland, both of which were occupied by US troops by july of that year. Such a campaign would have been long and hard, but certainly doable, especially given the success the US would have with amphibious operations in the pacific.

 

[SckizoBoy]

the early nukes were too heavy and too bulky to be carried by anything less than a quad engine strategic bomber like the B-29. there's absolutely no way planes like that could have been operated off of any carrier of the time. that said, if the British isles had fallen in '41, the US could still have mounted a campaign from Iceland and Greenland, both of which were occupied by US troops by july of that year. Such a campaign would have been long and hard, but certainly doable, especially given the success the US would have with amphibious operations in the pacific.

Yeesh... that's stretching it, but I see where you're coming from. A viable staging point for about 100000 troops plus armour/artillery/air cover is what you're going for, right?

My issue is that most people reckon that if the Battle of Britain had been won by the Germans in August, things would have been different (i.e. US would have concentrated solely on the Japanese, but I respect WWII USA for being the only time when a nation successfully prosecuted a war on two fronts, though granted, with a lot of water to keep the bad guys away). I disagree... should the UK have fallen, the Royal Family (plus Government) would have legged it over to Canada and cajoled the Americans into acting much earlier than they did. The Germans would need quite a high number of troops to keep the UK & Ireland pacified (especially our dear northern neighbours the Scots, who are belligerent at the best of times... I mean that in nice way), so if the Americans acted quickly, Ireland could be taken back within six months. Then, it's a case of momentum.

Where you mention a 'campaign from Iceland and Greenland' of strategic bombing, they would not have been able to start that effectively until about 1943 when mass B-17's started rolling off the production line. But, from an amphib ops pov, would've been quicker than you think (unlike PacWar) because the western front was (when it moved) quite fluid.

 

[aashell13]

Mine answer would have to be.....Stone Wall Jackson! The greatest military general in United States history!

That's a pretty tiny subset of the possible options, though. Don't limit yourself to the US - that way you can include some real military superstars...

HE is the best of the best, actually Hitler might have been a bit better.

though hitler repeated every mistake made by napoleon and only actually following napoleons ideas of conquering europe
Oh how ever so original he was, someone of the escapist should go back in time and tell him to "search bar" the napoleon tales to see he's just been ninja'd right

anyway now we're throwing in irrelevant people how about The Blacksmith of Balinalee : Sean Mac Eoín leading the sole succesfull defense against the british of a given position in the entire irish war for independence

or I dunno Ho Chi Minh since according to how most Americans think he's the only one who taunted america so bad that their tactics in the end just seemed like shooting soldiers out of cannons into a wall, that wall being vietnamese farmer boys given guns and taught how to run and hide

and also he turned vietnam into a rather prosperous nation untill the U.S.A Bombed the industries and farms that he had brought into design

Millions of americans died there as did so many frenchman
He liberated his own people and then fended against and obliterated the biggest military power in the world at that time

oh dear. someone's a bit vague on the details.

75,581 French Personnel were killed in Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, all of which were French territories at the time)
58,220 US personnel were killed in Vietnam.

even counting personnel wounded and missing, combined American and French casualties fall well short of a million.

Ho Chi Minh wasn't a commander, he was a politician. the principal commander was Vo Nguyen Giap. Giap didn't win because he was a genius, he won because he refused to quit and because the American leadership, particularly McNamara and Johnson, didn't understand the nature of the conflict.

Interestingly the Marines came up with a clear-and-hold strategy that might have worked, if anyone had listened to them. A similar strategy was primarily responsible for turning Iraq around after '07. But noooo, what could the Jarheads possibly know about anything, they've only been doing counterinsurgency since the 1890's...

'Liberated' is a relative term. thousands of vietnamese are thought to have died in 'reeducation' camps after the fall of Saigon in '75. True, the war might have been avoided in the first place if the Allies had recognized Minh's Republic of Vietnam in '45, but I digress.

 

[Toriver]

Well, I think what the OP's looking for is not only a good war strategist, but also a good leader of their people who was able to consolidate power and keep it, in other words, a true Machiavellian. In this regard, I would say hats off to a few leaders in particular:

Genghis Khan: nothing more to be said on that
Charlemagne: essentially founded the Holy Roman Empire, conquered most of Western Europe and defended it from Muslim incursion
Ieyasu Tokugawa: after the Warring States period, finished what Nobunaga started, united Japan under his banner and began the Edo period
Napoleon: volumes have already been said here on him
Simon Bolivar: Latin America's liberator, instigated and won revolutions in most of Central and South America

Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great would be on the list, aside from that whole assassination without a clear heir thing...
The American Civil War saw some brilliant generals in action: Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Jackson come to mind off the top of my head

 

[SckizoBoy]

58.000? you're living in a dream world, I'm not going to discuss this any further since you're living on propogandized facts

Please see the following: http://www1.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf

Report (from Feb2010) of the Veterans Association of USArmy.

And I think you're confusing deaths with casualties. Casualty count was of the order of half a million. And let's not forget the other allied armies (South Korea/South Vietnam etc. etc.)

You are free to argue the veracity of the VA's figures... but I'm just saying it's an official report. *raises palms*

 

[aashell13]

the early nukes were too heavy and too bulky to be carried by anything less than a quad engine strategic bomber like the B-29. there's absolutely no way planes like that could have been operated off of any carrier of the time. that said, if the British isles had fallen in '41, the US could still have mounted a campaign from Iceland and Greenland, both of which were occupied by US troops by july of that year. Such a campaign would have been long and hard, but certainly doable, especially given the success the US would have with amphibious operations in the pacific.

Yeesh... that's stretching it, but I see where you're coming from. A viable staging point for about 100000 troops plus armour/artillery/air cover is what you're going for, right?

My issue is that most people reckon that if the Battle of Britain had been won by the Germans in August, things would have been different (i.e. US would have concentrated solely on the Japanese, but I respect WWII USA for being the only time when a nation successfully prosecuted a war on two fronts, though granted, with a lot of water to keep the bad guys away). I disagree... should the UK have fallen, the Royal Family (plus Government) would have legged it over to Canada and cajoled the Americans into acting much earlier than they did. The Germans would need quite a high number of troops to keep the UK & Ireland pacified (especially our dear northern neighbours the Scots, who are belligerent at the best of times... I mean that in nice way), so if the Americans acted quickly, Ireland could be taken back within six months. Then, it's a case of momentum.

Where you mention a 'campaign from Iceland and Greenland' of strategic bombing, they would not have been able to start that effectively until about 1943 when mass B-17's started rolling off the production line. But, from an amphib ops pov, would've been quicker than you think (unlike PacWar) because the western front was (when it moved) quite fluid.

Iceland as a staging point for an expeditionary force to retake the British Isles, yes, you're right about that being my main idea. The part about heavy bombers was to point out that they're the only effective way to deliver an early nuke, not that one would mount a strategic bombing campaign from iceland.

Washington always considered Nazi Germany to be a much greater threat than Japan, so I'm at a loss for why people think we would have ignored the Germans and concentrated on the Japanese if the UK had fallen. I do wonder about how quickly the US would have moved, however. Anti-War sentiment in this country was very strong before Pearl Harbor, and it's an open question whether any amount of cajoling would have moved public opinion enough for a declaration of war to be made before december of '41.

All that aside, I have serious doubts that Sealion would have succeeded even if the RAF had been defeated as the Luftwaffe planned.

 

[SckizoBoy]

All that aside, I have serious doubts that Sealion would have succeeded even if the RAF had been defeated as the Luftwaffe planned.

Same... the Germans just didn't have enough amphib capability to pull off an effective invasion. Plus, the whole navy vs navy thing was going on as well. *meh* Love the conjecture though. *grin*

Even if they did pull it off, the Germans would seeeeeeriously be spread too thin. Would've been easy pickings down the line.

 

[MrJKapowey]

man.....im afraid to say this...but its obvious.....Hitler.

...

No.

He was fucking terrible, his aims of racial purity for his anti russian campaign (Operation Barbarossa) meant that he ordered his men to act like death squads and kill russians, even when they (at first) wanted to help him fight Stalin. They didn't want to for long.

He also continually changed and altered his main objectives for the campaign, meaning that his men were constantly shuffled and also that the operation lost all momentum. He interfered with the military planning and ignored all the recomendations of his (quite frankly) excellent generals. He got into a ***** fight with Stalin over who would control Stalingrad, losing a massive force because he refused to let them pull out, The battle was one of the bloodiest of the war and resulted in the german forces surrendering.

He was a brilliant orator but other than that - frankly shit.

My nominations -

1. Erwin Rommel, he was a fucking hero - the cleanest army in the whole german forces in WW2, honourable, skilled, generally epic.
2. Gaius Julius Caesar - The Gallic Wars. Go read it. (I joke)
3. Bernard Montgommery - Beat the excellent Erwin Rommel - and my personal faviroute just because he was pretty unorthodox.

 

[SckizoBoy]

3. Bernard Montgommery - Beat the excellent Erwin Rommel - and my personal faviroute just because he was pretty unorthodox.

Grrr! Arg! [small]in the best spirit[/small] I'm going to have to check, but I'm fairly sure that the 15th & 21st PzDivs were single tank regiment divisions (and often under strength). Sure Monty won, but he kinda made a meal of it, and XXXCorps was much more powerful than AK. And I will forever rail at him for Op MarketGarden. Patton! You're up!