• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Greatest General in History

The Greatest General in History

  • Napoleon Bonaparta

    Votes: 5 14.3%

  • Genghis Khan

    Votes: 10 28.6%

  • Julius Caesar

    Votes: 4 11.4%

  • Salah ad-Din, Yusuf ibn Ayyub

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Georgy Zhukov

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Alexander the Great

    Votes: 10 28.6%

  • Sir Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Charles Martel

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Sun Tzu

    Votes: 3 8.6%

  • Akbar the Great

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    35
Bodhisattva said:
I love Patton but he was over rated... he always had the advantage tactically and in forces.
Click to expand...

Patton with equal forces of sermons vs Rommel with his original Panzer divisions...

vegas take your bets, it will be one for the books.

Hitler sealed his fate when he essentially banished Rommel from the western front lines.
 
MichaelJR said:
He would have been if Rommel wasn't re-assigned and the Soviets didn't open up the eastern front. It would have been an even match.

Hitler had a gripe with Rommel. Rommel was his ace, and he decided to play the pocket kings instead of the pocket rockets. Fools decision IMO, it lost him the war. Rommel was his most dangerous weapon.
Click to expand...

Methinks that Patton was just over-rated. To see a real Western Allied general, see for William Slim. That's your idea of an underdog. Low manpower, scarce resources, ignored by most Allied planners, he nonetheless routed superior Japanese forces in India through pure skill. Patton was good, but not that top-rank, Rommel-like good.
 
MichaelJR said:
Patton with equal forces of sermons vs Rommel with his original Panzer divisions...

vegas take your bets, it will be one for the books.

Hitler sealed his fate when he essentially banished Rommel from the western front lines.
Click to expand...

Even with Rommel, the Third Reich would have still lost. If they wanted to win a war, they should have changed courses at least from around the early 1930s. It's a miracle that they lasted for so long.
 
MichaelJR said:
Patton with equal forces of sermons vs Rommel with his original Panzer divisions...

vegas take your bets, it will be one for the books.

Hitler sealed his fate when he essentially banished Rommel from the western front lines.
Click to expand...

They both kicked ass... I would love to have seen either against the Commies...
 
MichaelJR said:
100%.

If they did not break the non-agression pact, a fair amount of the western world would still have a swastika flying high, not a doubt in my mind. The eastern front lost the war. Europe was ripe for the taking without the Soviets taking on the Nazis along with the Americans. Germany would be around to this day as the Reich if the soviets were not engaged whilst the rest of Europe was being fought.

If they had completed the Atlantic wall, their ME-262 program into full production, and their atomic program....well....I believe the U.S. and Germany would have given each other the proverbial 'nod' and called it a day.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what're you talking about, but I'll reply anyways.
With the US and the UK existing, the Nazis would have had no way to keep on to Western Europe.
Your nonsense that the Eastern Front lost the war needs no comment. On second thought, do you mean for the Axis? Thought you meant losing the war for the Allies. Apologies if misunderstood.
As for their atomic program, they still needed a decade to realize any atomic bomb. They wasted incredible amounts of resources on the V-weapons (which in hindsight, were incredibly useless) and since most of the best Axis scientists moved to the US or the UK due to the repression, they were far from an atomic bomb despite what popular myths and Hollywood movies dictate.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Even with Rommel, the Third Reich would have still lost. If they wanted to win a war, they should have changed courses at least from around the early 1930s. It's a miracle that they lasted for so long.
Click to expand...

Their biggest mistake was the eastern front and not completing the atlantic wall. I don't think they would have lost, I honestly believe the war would have stopped. U.S. was too smart. With a limitless amount of panzer divisions on the western front, a ground assault would have been an exercise in futility. 50 year cold war, 100%. Eventually, Germany would invade the Soviets with zero western pressure. Chances are, in the process without western bombing pressure, the Germans would have made the nuke. No question about it.

I could see large scale war between Soviets/China vs Japan/Germany though. Now THAT would have been a nightmare on a good day. All countries involved were straight savage in warfare on a good day. Something for the history books to say the least. We also would have developed a nuke in our isolation.

At the end of the day, it would see be America vs the Totalitarians. Soviets, Nazis....still same old cold war. I'm just wondering where GB would have ended up. We would have been drawn in no matter what, but to what point and end. Would the V2s have stopped?

Who the hell knows.
 
Proud South Korean said:
I have no idea what're you talking about, but I'll reply anyways.
With the US and the UK existing, the Nazis would have had no way to keep on to Western Europe.
Your nonsense that the Eastern Front lost the war needs no comment. On second thought, do you mean for the Axis? Thought you meant losing the war for the Allies. Apologies if misunderstood.
As for their atomic program, they still needed a decade to realize any atomic bomb. They wasted incredible amounts of resources on the V-weapons (which in hindsight, were incredibly useless) and since most of the best Axis scientists moved to the US or the UK due to the repression, they were far from an atomic bomb despite what popular myths and Hollywood movies dictate.
Click to expand...

I think we may have lost one another in translation.

Basically, if Germany never opened the Soviet front, and had all the eastern front resources at their disposal, the world would look quite differently today.
We did poach a ton of German scientists, they were not too far behind. Without constant bombarment and the movement of labs, they would have made significant ground. The V program was an enormous waste of money (although, it was the basis of our ICBM and space program), the implementation of the ME262 and the Strumghewehr would have changed things quite a bit.

No matter what, it would have lead to a square up between the U.S. and Germany, no question about it. They would have rolled the soviets if they had nobody to fight on the west. He committed too many resources to too many fronts. Splitting them up would have changed the odds immensely. The U.S., regardless, was his biggest threat. We were a gigantic sleeping monster.

Needless to say, it would have been epic (even more epic than it already was). Two countries willing to light off the big boys. Bet your ass there would be quite a few more cities with some radioactive history.
 
Bodhisattva said:
They both kicked ass... I would love to have seen either against the Commies...
Click to expand...

They would have rug-rolled the commies like it was going out of style. Rommel was reassigned for political reasons, and Patton never had the chance. If either of them were given the opportunity....game over. Those men were beyond Generals. They were the kind of military minds that come along once a millennia.
 
Out of that list though....

tough call. Julius I think we can cancel. History was written in his favor
Alexander was a beast on a bad day. Ambition caught him by the balls. Damn shame, brought some civilization to the planet.
Tzu was a genius, still an inspiration to all military/business/etc on the planet.

Napoleon...now that man. Exiled. Makes a comeback beyond the likes of which fiction writers couldn't imagine. Romantic to say the least. I like this guy. That belgian winter. Those Prussians could put up a fight, that's for damn sure. Wellesley, in that sense, caught a lucky draw. Great General. Won't deny that. Was he a match for Napoleon? I think circumstance played an enormous role in that scenario. Than again, capitalizing on circumstance signifies prowess. Napoleon had a...well a Napoleon complex. I suppose Wellesley exploited that.

How does one judge a superior General in that sense? Victory? Ability? Raw talent? How can any of them be judged? The fact that we write and debate about them to this day is incredible. Their names will be spoken through history as long as we print. I dare say the debate itself is an exercise in futility.
 
MichaelJR said:
Patton with equal forces of sermons vs Rommel with his original Panzer divisions...

vegas take your bets, it will be one for the books.

Hitler sealed his fate when he essentially banished Rommel from the western front lines.
Click to expand...

Shermans were crap. The fact that Patton even made the useable is another point in his favor. Just Patton with Shermans and Rommel with Panzers, no contest. The better equipment would hand it to Rommel as unlike many other generals, he at least understood mobile warfare. Pattons answer to the Panzers in North Africa was artillery, not Shermans. That is where Patton truly shined against other Generals of the time, he had a much better grasp of joint forces operations.

Tank vs Tank, Rommel for sure, although maybe an even split with even quality of equipment. Overall, Patton, hands down as he would never go tank to tank with Rommel. He would use tanks to pin Rommel in then pound him with arty and aircraft.
 
DVSentinel said:
Shermans were crap. The fact that Patton even made the useable is another point in his favor. Just Patton with Shermans and Rommel with Panzers, no contest. The better equipment would hand it to Rommel as unlike many other generals, he at least understood mobile warfare. Pattons answer to the Panzers in North Africa was artillery, not Shermans. That is where Patton truly shined against other Generals of the time, he had a much better grasp of joint forces operations.

Tank vs Tank, Rommel for sure, although maybe an even split with even quality of equipment. Overall, Patton, hands down as he would never go tank to tank with Rommel. He would use tanks to pin Rommel in then pound him with arty and aircraft.
Click to expand...

Agreed. German military tech was 10 years ahead of the allies in most arenas. Some even further. Panzer was light-years ahead of what we were working with.
American artillery was no joke. It was our saving grace. I suppose it always has been.
 
George Kastriot Skenderbeu, for managing to withhold 3 of the Sulltan's sieges (2 personally organized from the Sultan) at the castle of Kruja, Albania. You have a vast Ottoman Empire army at one end and Skenderbe and his brilliant tactics at the other.

Result: Failure to capture Kruja and move on to Venice. Only after 10 years after his death was such a thing possible. By then the world got more prepared.
 
Alfred said:
That said, I think Alexander probably had it quite easy, all things said and done (the Greeks had superior armies, without a doubt IMO) and so trashing the Persians might not have been as difficult as one might think.
Click to expand...

Alexander was half Dardanian. His mother came from the Dardanian sub-tribe of Mollos.
 
DDD said:
Alexander was half Dardanian. His mother came from the Dardanian sub-tribe of Mollos.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Olympias was the daughter of Neoptolemus I who was, in fact, king of the Molossians.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Even with Rommel, the Third Reich would have still lost. If they wanted to win a war, they should have changed courses at least from around the early 1930s. It's a miracle that they lasted for so long.
Click to expand...

The Germans lost because of the mistakes Hitler forced his generals to make.
 
apdst said:
The Germans lost because of the mistakes Hitler forced his generals to make.
Click to expand...

This is one of those enduring but self-serving myths that was largely pushed by Hitlers defeated Generals after the war. It is highly doubtful that even if his commanders had free reign that the war would have turned out dramatically different. It would have merely lasted a little longer.
 
Sherman123 said:
This is one of those enduring but self-serving myths that was largely pushed by Hitlers defeated Generals after the war. It is highly doubtful that even if his commanders had free reign that the war would have turned out dramatically different. It would have merely lasted a little longer.
Click to expand...

It's not a myth, that if Hitler had allowed his commanders to excercise elastic defenses, when necessary and chosen not to do battle at Stalingrad and Kursk, the war would have gone differently.

British intelligence being fed to the Soviets was a big reason that Kursk was a slam dunk. Would that intelligence stream created the same scenario on a different battlefield? Probably, unless the Germans didn't decide to put themselves in a winner take all scenario, like they did at Stalingrad and Kursk.

The real myth, is that a German defeat was a forgone conclusion from the git-go.
 
apdst said:
British intelligence being fed to the Soviets was a big reason that Kursk was a slam dunk. Would that intelligence stream created the same scenario on a different battlefield? Probably, unless the Germans didn't decide to put themselves in a winner take all scenario, like they did at Stalingrad and Kursk.

The real myth, is that a German defeat was a forgone conclusion from the git-go.
Click to expand...

While I do agree the war would of gone differently, could Germany really overcome the combined resources of the Allies and the Soviets? You speak of a defense strategy and I do agree that would of made a difference. If Hitler would of just allowed for a break out of Stalingrad, instead of ordering to defend to the last, you wouldn't of had an entire army wiped out. But I think for the Germans to truly turn the tied, they really needed a jet by late 1943-1944, to counter American Air Superiority.
 
apdst said:
It's not a myth, that if Hitler had allowed his commanders to excercise elastic defenses, when necessary and chosen not to do battle at Stalingrad and Kursk, the war would have gone differently.

British intelligence being fed to the Soviets was a big reason that Kursk was a slam dunk. Would that intelligence stream created the same scenario on a different battlefield? Probably, unless the Germans didn't decide to put themselves in a winner take all scenario, like they did at Stalingrad and Kursk.

The real myth, is that a German defeat was a forgone conclusion from the git-go.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read Robert Harris' Fatherland?

If you haven't heard of it, here:

Fatherland, Robert Harris, Wikipedia
 
apdst said:
It's not a myth, that if Hitler had allowed his commanders to excercise elastic defenses, when necessary and chosen not to do battle at Stalingrad and Kursk, the war would have gone differently.

British intelligence being fed to the Soviets was a big reason that Kursk was a slam dunk. Would that intelligence stream created the same scenario on a different battlefield? Probably, unless the Germans didn't decide to put themselves in a winner take all scenario, like they did at Stalingrad and Kursk.

The real myth, is that a German defeat was a forgone conclusion from the git-go.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. Let's look at both of those examples for a moment. At Stalingrad the only difference would have been the extrication of a German army group, at Kursk it would have been a single breakthrough victory that would never have shattered the Soviet military or regained their position in the East. The only major difference would have been that more troops would have escaped the Soviet Union and the war would have lasted longer. The end would have been the same--German defeat.
 
Sherman123 said:
This is one of those enduring but self-serving myths that was largely pushed by Hitlers defeated Generals after the war. It is highly doubtful that even if his commanders had free reign that the war would have turned out dramatically different. It would have merely lasted a little longer.
Click to expand...

The single biggest factor in Germany's defeat is also why the Soviet Union was so vulnerable immediately following the war. Logistics. Bullets, beans and especially petrol.
 
Sherman123 said:
I strongly disagree. Let's look at both of those examples for a moment. At Stalingrad the only difference would have been the extrication of a German army group, at Kursk it would have been a single breakthrough victory that would never have shattered the Soviet military or regained their position in the East. The only major difference would have been that more troops would have escaped the Soviet Union and the war would have lasted longer. The end would have been the same--German defeat.
Click to expand...

That's my point, had the German not engaged in either of those battles and concentrated their combat power on objectives that more operational importance. Prior to both of those battles the Soviets had a casualtu rate that meant they would run out of men before the Germans did.
 
apdst said:
That's my point, had the German not engaged in either of those battles and concentrated their combat power on objectives that more operational importance. Prior to both of those battles the Soviets had a casualtu rate that meant they would run out of men before the Germans did.
Click to expand...

This was no better demonstrated than with the initial objectives with Barbarossa. Originially, the objective were the rich oil fields in the south, and Stalingrad was only meant as a diversion. Hitler's ego turned it into the focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom