Froggin_Ashole42 I mean,do you know hard it is to totally reform a government
He didn't reform it, he made sure everyone groveled at his feet by making a big bureacratic mess out of it, with about 5 deparments directly under him covering generally the same areas. He spread power wide and gave priviliges to all the little nazi's craving for attention. And he was lazy, most of nazi policy was made up by all the little nazi's mentioned above. As for economy.. lol.. he plundered Europe and still ended up in dark red figures.
EDIT: Hitler Certainly had a choice in invading the Soviet Union, since the Red Army wasn't exactly ready to strike, or would be any time soon.
MazzFormerly didn't I inform u of that Wittmann event during a practice for the the Battle of Chariot? lol ;)
Hell yeah. And something about how your namesake became a plumber.
'judge reinhold'yea because those finns certainly got smashed when those invincible soviets tried to stomp them, right :rolleyes:[/Quote] The Red Army did learn their lessons (well, some of them, that much that was possible with their resources after Stalin remaking them) after the humiliating Winter War, and almost crushed Finland in the end of the Continuation War. [QUOTE='VioLAtoR[xL]']He didn't reform it, he made sure everyone groveled at his feet by making a big bureacratic mess out of it, with about 5 deparments directly under him covering generally the same areas. He spread power wide and gave priviliges to all the little nazi's craving for attention. And he was lazy, most of nazi policy was made up by all the little nazi's mentioned above. As for economy.. lol.. he plundered Europe and still ended up in dark red figures. EDIT: Hitler Certainly had a choice in invading the Soviet Union, since the Red Army wasn't exactly ready to strike, or would be any time soon.
I don't know that much about him since I don't find reading more about him enjoyable, but wasn't the economy relatively stable before he went to war? Anyway, controlling a country and a big deal of Europe is an achievement, but there is nothing that could justify having him as a hero, expect extreme stupidity. If my sources are reliable (I'm not sure myself, they might be biassed or completely wrong, but anyway at least the main source is well written) Stalin was planning an attack on Germany to make his dream of a Soviet union covering the entire planet true. He was however only building up his troops and therefore only had about the same amount of troops and equipment on the front that the Germans attacked with. The idea that they might have been there for defending only is not supported by their locations , training or response to the attack. Hitler was bound to loose from the beginning, his only chance was to attack and hope that he would have luck, if he would have stayed allied with Stalin he had most probably been crushed, not that Stalin was a friend of democrazy, but he never gave his own feelings room to alter his decisions. (he killed even most of his own friends and relatives, also those he really liked) It was in Stalins interest to conquer Europe, since that was the only way to conquer the world. As he was realistic he understood that he had to take on his enemies one by one, and crushing the nazis wouldn't have caused others to attack him so he would get time to rearrange his troops to attack the next target. He might have tried to achieve his goal (ww3 leading to taking over the world) before he died, that could be a reason to why he copied his moves from before ww2. That wasn't smart, and his next victims seems to have cleared him away. Feel free to correct me, I would like to know if there is any facts that would make these views unrealistic.
Huffardo wasn't the economy relatively stable before he went to war? Anyway, controlling a country and a big deal of Europe is an achievement, but there is nothing that could justify having him as a hero, expect extreme stupidity.
It was stable, as I said before, because of reforms done during the Weimarer Republic, before Hitler took power. He often was just very lucky with what he did. Think of all the actions he got through with before attacking Poland. The real achievements, like conquering or controlling were done by his subordinates. However, I totally agree with the last part :)
FederikerAlexander the great, Augustus, Ferret? And they were good leader, not evil...
Alexander? A great economic leader/reformer? He was a great military/political leader, but didn't do anything significant concerning economy. His father, Phillipus 2, changed Macedonia from a backwards, divided country into an 'imperialistic', united power.
I'll agree on Augustus. His 'pax augusta' repaired the Roman economy, that had been hit hard by the civil wars.
My other hero is Admiral "Jacky" Fisher, who scrapped the British fleet to build dreadnoughts and overnight made every other ship obsolete after the Dreadnought herself was launched. Then after WW1, he wanted the dreadnought fleet scrapped in favour of submarines and aircraft carriers. A real naval visionary.
When you are all through evaluating Hitlers attack on the USSR with perfect vision in hindsight. You should read up on what actually happened during Barborsa (Sp). His generals really took little notice of orders, they where more interested in who would be remembered as the comquerer of Leningrad or whereever. Guderian was the worst it transpires. Hitler's objectives where strategic, oil in the Caucuses,etc. A case in point was operation Citadel (Kursk Offensive) when the operation was delayed and delayed as he wanted the Panthers to take part. He was going to call it off as he was afraid it was compromised by the length of time it was taking, but his general staff persuaded him otherwise. He eventually distrusted his generals and took control himself at the worst possible moment, when the Werhmacht where on the defensive. "Not one step back" was fatal for an army that relied on mobile warfare to win. If he had not taken control, then the war on the Eastern front might well have had a different outcome. For example look at the defense of Kharkov (3rd battle) when Hausser disobeyed the order to standfast, withdrew in good order and then retook it!
Heroes are for the weak... but nonetheless:
Frenchman - tie between Cardinal Richelieu Louis XIV and Napoleon... Probagbly Louis XIV given his better military record. More realisticly Richelieu because of his political, religious and military manipulations...
German - Friedrich der Grosse or Bismarck. Probably Friedrich der Grosse given his military record and the primacy of Prussia under his reign
Russia - Peter the Great or Stalin... despite their crap human right records they created to a large extent something out of nothing.
Brit - hard to say... I'd go along with Thatcher because she broke the unions :D [at significant cost but I hate unions so doesn't mean anything for me]
Fisher... the most influencial man in English Maritime history [moreso than Nelson who was just at best a tactician... Fisher was a strategist].
And I wouldn't be so harsh on Hitler's military capabilities. Granted he made some stupid decisions, esp Stalingrad and afterwards but when he had the strategic initiative he was quite successful. Hitler wasn't such an idiot for initiative Barbarossa. Bear in mind that Stalin was making his presense felt in Romania and Eastern Europe at the time..... and considering that Germany's oil supply was there, losing that would be tantamount to losing the war.
And wasn't the backhand action in Kharkov Von Manstein's brainchild Legion?
Nice to see us all here Count, me, you, Mikey and I think I saw crabcakes too. Just can't take Acomba any more. Someone over there is saying the Spanish socialists are on the same path as Hitler:rolleyes:
Von Manstein was in overall control, but the point I'm making is that the Werhmacht and SS divisions performed best in mobile warfare. [color=black]Paul Hausser disobeyed Hitler's "halt" order, withdrew and saved the [/color][color=black]Leibstandarte and retook the city later. [/color] [color=black]I honestly believe that they could have overcome the Soviet forces if they where allowed to use mobility, give ground, extend the Soviet supply lines, then attack. [/color] [color=black]Operation Sonnenwende:When that fool Himmler was put in charge of Army group Vistula, Guderian knew the Soviet Armour had travelled far enough to need a refit/maintenance and hence the ideal time for attack, but no the attack was too late with too little, but did make good headway with the Kingtigers showing how they could dominate the battlefield in an attack. While failing tactically, Sonnenwende achieved a major strategic success. The operation may not have been as large as Guderian originally hoped, but for such a small offensive, its effects cannot be understated.[/color] If more operation like these had been allowed from Kursk onwards, things might have been different. Apart from Zhukov, I don't rate any of the soviet generals and their lack of tactics other than quantity
Yep its very nice and cozy here... I'm making hot chocolate... if you want beer I think Beast of War has some hiding ;). I agree with what you've written but don't agree with one point. Since Stalingrad the Germans had lost the Strategic initiative over to the Russians and could at best make local tactical offenses. What played worse for the Germans was that the Russia of 1942+ was not the Russia of 1917 so the case of mobile warfare practised by Hindenburg and Ludendorff would not have worked as effectively. Leadership, industrialisation and sheer numbers are part of the reason behind this... EDIT: if it had been the OTHER way round - ie Stalin invaded then yes it would have been a good idea to practice the manoeuvers of Hindenburg... as Stalin would most probably have rejected advice [as opposed to being desperate for it like in 1941] and gone right down the path of 1914....