Moderator: Community Team
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
HitRed wrote:Hannibal from Carthage should be on any list of offensive minded leaders.
Dukasaur wrote: That was the night I broke into St. Mike's Cathedral and shat on the Archibishop's desk
The most noted use of Fabian strategy in American history was by George Washington, sometimes called the "American Fabius" for his use of the strategy during the first year of the American Revolutionary War. While Washington had initially pushed for traditional direct engagements using battle lines, he was convinced of the merits of using his army to harass the British rather than engage them, both by the urging of his generals in his councils of war, and by the pitched-battle disasters of 1776, especially the Battle of Long Island. In addition, given his background as a Colonial officer who had participated in asymmetric campaigns against Native Americans, Washington predicted that this style would aid in defeating the traditional battle-styles of the British Army.[16]
However, as with the original Fabius, Fabian strategy is often more popular in retrospect than at the time. To the troops, it can seem like a cowardly and demoralizing policy of continual retreat. Fabian strategy is sometimes combined with scorched earth tactics that demand sacrifice from civilian populations. Fabian leaders may be perceived as giving up territory without a fight, and since Fabian strategies promise extended war rather than quick victories, they can wear down the will of one's own side as well as that of the enemy.[citation needed] During the American Revolution, John Adams' dissatisfaction with Washington's conduct of the war led him to declare, "I am sick of Fabian systems in all quarters."
President Truman later described him as the "architect of victory" in World War II.
George Catlett Marshall, (born December 31, 1880, Uniontown, Pennsylvania, U.S.—died October 16, 1959, Washington, D.C.), general of the army and U.S. Army chief of staff during World War II (1939–45) and later U.S. secretary of state (1947–49) and of defense (1950–51). The European Recovery Program he proposed in 1947 became known as the Marshall Plan. He received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1953.
Early life and military career
Marshall was descended on both sides of his family from settlers who had been in Virginia since the 17th century. His father, a prosperous coke and coal merchant during his younger son’s boyhood, was in financial difficulties when George entered the Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, in 1897. After a poor beginning at the institute, Marshall steadily improved his record, and he soon showed proficiency in military subjects. Once he had decided on a military career, he concentrated on leadership and ended his last year at the institute as first captain of the corps of cadets.
Marshall finished college in 1901. Immediately after receiving his commission as second lieutenant of infantry in February 1902, he married Elizabeth Carter Coles of Lexington and embarked for 18 months’ service in the Philippines. Marshall early developed the rigid self-discipline, the habits of study, and the attributes of command that eventually brought him to the top of his profession. Men who served under him spoke of his quiet self-confidence, his lack of flamboyance, his talent for presenting his case to both soldiers and civilians, and his ability to make his subordinates want to do their best.
....skip in the same article to:
Marshall was sworn in as chief of staff of the U.S. Army on September 1, 1939, the day World War II began with Germany’s invasion of Poland. For the next six years, Marshall directed the raising of new divisions, the training of troops, the development of new weapons and equipment, and the selection of top commanders. When he entered office, the U.S. forces consisted of fewer than 200,000 officers and men. Under his direction it expanded in less than four years to a well-trained and well-equipped force of 8,300,000. Marshall raised and equipped the largest ground and air force in the history of the United States, a feat that earned him the appellation of “the organizer of victory” from the wartime British prime minister, Winston Churchill. As a representative of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff at the international conferences in Casablanca, Morocco, in Washington, D.C., in Quebec, in Cairo, and in Tehrān, Marshall led the fight for an Allied drive on German forces across the English Channel, in opposition to the so-called Mediterranean strategy of the British. So valuable was his service to Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt that he was kept on at the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington while command over the cross-Channel invasion was given to Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower.
jonesthecurl wrote:Not really my area of expertise but I think there's a few I might nominate as possibles. I'm certainly not advocating all these all as upstanding morally, or as history-changers but I think that Alfred the Great who went from hiding on a patch of mud to king of the Anglo-Saxons deserves a mention. Also Saladin, Tecumseh. England's Edward I (Longshanks) - a horrible guy, but good at the military stuff, Cortes(ditto) The Duke of Wellington (ditto), Spartacus, El Cid, Charlemagne.
El Cid and his wife Jimena Díaz lived peacefully in Valencia for five years until the Almoravids besieged the city. El Cid died on July 10, 1099.[14] His death was likely a result of the famine and deprivations caused by the siege.[14] Valencia was captured by Masdali on May 5, 1102 and it did not become a Christian city again for over 125 years. Jimena fled to Burgos, Castile, in 1101. She rode into the town with her retinue and the body of El Cid.[14] Originally buried in Castile in the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña [es; ca], his body now lies at the center of Burgos Cathedral.
Dukasaur wrote:You pose very interesting criteria for this category. "Impact on history and not on brilliant strategies." I think most people would say top military leader should be based on brilliant strategy, regardless of the final outcome. Impact on history should be reserved for "top political leader" or something, rather than a purely military leader. Nonetheless, rather that get sidetracked by this, I'll play along and go with "impact on history" as the main criterion.
1. Alexander the Great.
Unquestionably, shifted the centre of gravity of the ancient world from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean. Before Alexander, all the great empires, Babylonian and Sumerian and Akkadian and Persian and Assyrian, drew their power from the agricultural output of Mesopotamia. After Alexandria, for a short while the power of the Hellenic, Ptolomaic, and Punic empires was drawn from maritime commerce.
2. Cato the Elder
Reversed the great advances of the Hellenistic world. Created a new world order dominated by the cold and ruthless efficiency of the Roman pillage-state. There were many notable Roman generals, of course. Julius Caesar was probably the most famous, but Caesar was just another predictable bore, following the blueprint that Cato the Elder had mapped out.
3. Charlemagne
The paranoia of backstabbing Roman administrations had bred into generals that they could trust no-one. A leader had to be personally involved in every decision, personally present at every major engagement. That worked while Roman infrastructure made rapid travel possible, but once the roads fell into disrepair and long-distance travel became painfully slow, it was no longer practical for a leader to travel from one place to another to personally supervise everything. And, with literacy on the decline, transmitting written orders was not always reliable, for the recipients might be completely illiterate. Developing a system where an emperor could reliably delegate authority to his underlings without fear of being backstabbed was Charlemagne's great achievement, and it gave birth to the feudal system, which transformed history for 1000 years.
4. Cortez
Cortez did not create the technological superiority which Europeans enjoyed over the nations on other continents, but he was the first to map how technological superiority could be leveraged so that a tiny army could conquer an entire nation. In doing so he drew the road map not only for the Spanish Empire, but also the Portuguese, British, Dutch, and French empires.
5. Churchill
Churchill knew that the Nazis could not be allowed to survive. It wasn't so much that letting them conquer Europe would be irrevocable. They were corrupt enough that they could be expected to disintegrate soon after the conquest. But letting them win would perpetuate the attempts at conquest. Once the Nazis fell apart, someone else would try their hand at world conquest, and then someone else, and then someone else. The Nazis had to be defeated, and defeated by overwhelming co-operation between nations, to make the very idea of world conquest unthinkable. In this he was successful, and in the process created the United Nations, which although flawed, has been a roadmap for world peace. Though there have been many wars since then, few have been for territorial gain, and the ones that were generally gained only tiny slivers of land.
The ram wrote:Dukasaur wrote:You pose very interesting criteria for this category. "Impact on history and not on brilliant strategies." I think most people would say top military leader should be based on brilliant strategy, regardless of the final outcome. Impact on history should be reserved for "top political leader" or something, rather than a purely military leader. Nonetheless, rather that get sidetracked by this, I'll play along and go with "impact on history" as the main criterion.
1. Alexander the Great.
Unquestionably, shifted the centre of gravity of the ancient world from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean. Before Alexander, all the great empires, Babylonian and Sumerian and Akkadian and Persian and Assyrian, drew their power from the agricultural output of Mesopotamia. After Alexandria, for a short while the power of the Hellenic, Ptolomaic, and Punic empires was drawn from maritime commerce.
2. Cato the Elder
Reversed the great advances of the Hellenistic world. Created a new world order dominated by the cold and ruthless efficiency of the Roman pillage-state. There were many notable Roman generals, of course. Julius Caesar was probably the most famous, but Caesar was just another predictable bore, following the blueprint that Cato the Elder had mapped out.
3. Charlemagne
The paranoia of backstabbing Roman administrations had bred into generals that they could trust no-one. A leader had to be personally involved in every decision, personally present at every major engagement. That worked while Roman infrastructure made rapid travel possible, but once the roads fell into disrepair and long-distance travel became painfully slow, it was no longer practical for a leader to travel from one place to another to personally supervise everything. And, with literacy on the decline, transmitting written orders was not always reliable, for the recipients might be completely illiterate. Developing a system where an emperor could reliably delegate authority to his underlings without fear of being backstabbed was Charlemagne's great achievement, and it gave birth to the feudal system, which transformed history for 1000 years.
4. Cortez
Cortez did not create the technological superiority which Europeans enjoyed over the nations on other continents, but he was the first to map how technological superiority could be leveraged so that a tiny army could conquer an entire nation. In doing so he drew the road map not only for the Spanish Empire, but also the Portuguese, British, Dutch, and French empires.
5. Churchill
Churchill knew that the Nazis could not be allowed to survive. It wasn't so much that letting them conquer Europe would be irrevocable. They were corrupt enough that they could be expected to disintegrate soon after the conquest. But letting them win would perpetuate the attempts at conquest. Once the Nazis fell apart, someone else would try their hand at world conquest, and then someone else, and then someone else. The Nazis had to be defeated, and defeated by overwhelming co-operation between nations, to make the very idea of world conquest unthinkable. In this he was successful, and in the process created the United Nations, which although flawed, has been a roadmap for world peace. Though there have been many wars since then, few have been for territorial gain, and the ones that were generally gained only tiny slivers of land.
Churchill never wanted to fight the nazi's. He was actually the leader of a coalition government at the time and it was Clement Attlee who forced churchill. As for the nazi's intent of world domination, they didn't declare war. However, as a lefty I'm sure you won't let stupid facts get in the way of your intelligent insight.
Why Hitler's grand plan during the second world war collapsed
Two key factors undermined Germany's campaign: US involvement boosted the allies' arms-producing capabilities, while sheer Soviet manpower led to catastrophic defeat in Russia
Abstract
Any discussion of Hitler’s alleged ‘programme’for achieving world dominion should be preceded by an attempt at terminological clarification. ‘World Dominion’ or ‘World Domination’ obviously convey something different from ‘World Power’; all the same and all grammatical incongruities notwithstanding, both terms are often used as synonyms.1 To illustrate the point: there is no need to elaborate further on the statement that Hitler wanted the Third Reich to achieve or regain world power status. This has never been in controversy, but in the early and mid-1980s Hitler’s foreign policy already gave rise to a widespread tendency abroad to interpret his ‘real’ aims as the ‘achievement of world domination’. Hitler’s often quoted dictum ‘Deutschland wird entweder Weltmacht oder überhaupt nicht sein’ should — so it was conjectured — be plainly read to mean: Germany must achieve world domination or it will perish.2
jusplay4fun wrote:The ram wrote:Dukasaur wrote:You pose very interesting criteria for this category. "Impact on history and not on brilliant strategies." I think most people would say top military leader should be based on brilliant strategy, regardless of the final outcome. Impact on history should be reserved for "top political leader" or something, rather than a purely military leader. Nonetheless, rather that get sidetracked by this, I'll play along and go with "impact on history" as the main criterion.
1. Alexander the Great.
Unquestionably, shifted the centre of gravity of the ancient world from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean. Before Alexander, all the great empires, Babylonian and Sumerian and Akkadian and Persian and Assyrian, drew their power from the agricultural output of Mesopotamia. After Alexandria, for a short while the power of the Hellenic, Ptolomaic, and Punic empires was drawn from maritime commerce.
2. Cato the Elder
Reversed the great advances of the Hellenistic world. Created a new world order dominated by the cold and ruthless efficiency of the Roman pillage-state. There were many notable Roman generals, of course. Julius Caesar was probably the most famous, but Caesar was just another predictable bore, following the blueprint that Cato the Elder had mapped out.
3. Charlemagne
The paranoia of backstabbing Roman administrations had bred into generals that they could trust no-one. A leader had to be personally involved in every decision, personally present at every major engagement. That worked while Roman infrastructure made rapid travel possible, but once the roads fell into disrepair and long-distance travel became painfully slow, it was no longer practical for a leader to travel from one place to another to personally supervise everything. And, with literacy on the decline, transmitting written orders was not always reliable, for the recipients might be completely illiterate. Developing a system where an emperor could reliably delegate authority to his underlings without fear of being backstabbed was Charlemagne's great achievement, and it gave birth to the feudal system, which transformed history for 1000 years.
4. Cortez
Cortez did not create the technological superiority which Europeans enjoyed over the nations on other continents, but he was the first to map how technological superiority could be leveraged so that a tiny army could conquer an entire nation. In doing so he drew the road map not only for the Spanish Empire, but also the Portuguese, British, Dutch, and French empires.
5. Churchill
Churchill knew that the Nazis could not be allowed to survive. It wasn't so much that letting them conquer Europe would be irrevocable. They were corrupt enough that they could be expected to disintegrate soon after the conquest. But letting them win would perpetuate the attempts at conquest. Once the Nazis fell apart, someone else would try their hand at world conquest, and then someone else, and then someone else. The Nazis had to be defeated, and defeated by overwhelming co-operation between nations, to make the very idea of world conquest unthinkable. In this he was successful, and in the process created the United Nations, which although flawed, has been a roadmap for world peace. Though there have been many wars since then, few have been for territorial gain, and the ones that were generally gained only tiny slivers of land.
Churchill never wanted to fight the nazi's. He was actually the leader of a coalition government at the time and it was Clement Attlee who forced churchill. As for the nazi's intent of world domination, they didn't declare war. However, as a lefty I'm sure you won't let stupid facts get in the way of your intelligent insight.
Based on the several books that I have read(before today), Hitler did want to dominate and conquer much of the world, especially Europe. He wanted the OIL in the Middle East and hence his campaign in North Africa. So, RAM, you are wrong.Why Hitler's grand plan during the second world war collapsed
Two key factors undermined Germany's campaign: US involvement boosted the allies' arms-producing capabilities, while sheer Soviet manpower led to catastrophic defeat in Russia
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/08/hitler-germany-campaign-collapsed
This sources adds a BIT of credibility to Ram's hypothesis, but the basic direction, based on the preview page, is that Duk and I are indeed correct. Journal of Contemporary History
https://www.jstor.org/stable/260090?seq=1
Also:Abstract
Any discussion of Hitler’s alleged ‘programme’for achieving world dominion should be preceded by an attempt at terminological clarification. ‘World Dominion’ or ‘World Domination’ obviously convey something different from ‘World Power’; all the same and all grammatical incongruities notwithstanding, both terms are often used as synonyms.1 To illustrate the point: there is no need to elaborate further on the statement that Hitler wanted the Third Reich to achieve or regain world power status. This has never been in controversy, but in the early and mid-1980s Hitler’s foreign policy already gave rise to a widespread tendency abroad to interpret his ‘real’ aims as the ‘achievement of world domination’. Hitler’s often quoted dictum ‘Deutschland wird entweder Weltmacht oder überhaupt nicht sein’ should — so it was conjectured — be plainly read to mean: Germany must achieve world domination or it will perish.2
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-349-17891-9_8
The ram wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:The ram wrote:Dukasaur wrote:You pose very interesting criteria for this category. "Impact on history and not on brilliant strategies." I think most people would say top military leader should be based on brilliant strategy, regardless of the final outcome. Impact on history should be reserved for "top political leader" or something, rather than a purely military leader. Nonetheless, rather that get sidetracked by this, I'll play along and go with "impact on history" as the main criterion.
1. Alexander the Great.
Unquestionably, shifted the centre of gravity of the ancient world from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean. Before Alexander, all the great empires, Babylonian and Sumerian and Akkadian and Persian and Assyrian, drew their power from the agricultural output of Mesopotamia. After Alexandria, for a short while the power of the Hellenic, Ptolomaic, and Punic empires was drawn from maritime commerce.
2. Cato the Elder
Reversed the great advances of the Hellenistic world. Created a new world order dominated by the cold and ruthless efficiency of the Roman pillage-state. There were many notable Roman generals, of course. Julius Caesar was probably the most famous, but Caesar was just another predictable bore, following the blueprint that Cato the Elder had mapped out.
3. Charlemagne
The paranoia of backstabbing Roman administrations had bred into generals that they could trust no-one. A leader had to be personally involved in every decision, personally present at every major engagement. That worked while Roman infrastructure made rapid travel possible, but once the roads fell into disrepair and long-distance travel became painfully slow, it was no longer practical for a leader to travel from one place to another to personally supervise everything. And, with literacy on the decline, transmitting written orders was not always reliable, for the recipients might be completely illiterate. Developing a system where an emperor could reliably delegate authority to his underlings without fear of being backstabbed was Charlemagne's great achievement, and it gave birth to the feudal system, which transformed history for 1000 years.
4. Cortez
Cortez did not create the technological superiority which Europeans enjoyed over the nations on other continents, but he was the first to map how technological superiority could be leveraged so that a tiny army could conquer an entire nation. In doing so he drew the road map not only for the Spanish Empire, but also the Portuguese, British, Dutch, and French empires.
5. Churchill
Churchill knew that the Nazis could not be allowed to survive. It wasn't so much that letting them conquer Europe would be irrevocable. They were corrupt enough that they could be expected to disintegrate soon after the conquest. But letting them win would perpetuate the attempts at conquest. Once the Nazis fell apart, someone else would try their hand at world conquest, and then someone else, and then someone else. The Nazis had to be defeated, and defeated by overwhelming co-operation between nations, to make the very idea of world conquest unthinkable. In this he was successful, and in the process created the United Nations, which although flawed, has been a roadmap for world peace. Though there have been many wars since then, few have been for territorial gain, and the ones that were generally gained only tiny slivers of land.
Churchill never wanted to fight the nazi's. He was actually the leader of a coalition government at the time and it was Clement Attlee who forced churchill. As for the nazi's intent of world domination, they didn't declare war. However, as a lefty I'm sure you won't let stupid facts get in the way of your intelligent insight.
Based on the several books that I have read(before today), Hitler did want to dominate and conquer much of the world, especially Europe. He wanted the OIL in the Middle East and hence his campaign in North Africa. So, RAM, you are wrong.Why Hitler's grand plan during the second world war collapsed
Two key factors undermined Germany's campaign: US involvement boosted the allies' arms-producing capabilities, while sheer Soviet manpower led to catastrophic defeat in Russia
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/08/hitler-germany-campaign-collapsed
This sources adds a BIT of credibility to Ram's hypothesis, but the basic direction, based on the preview page, is that Duk and I are indeed correct. Journal of Contemporary History
https://www.jstor.org/stable/260090?seq=1
Also:Abstract
Any discussion of Hitler’s alleged ‘programme’for achieving world dominion should be preceded by an attempt at terminological clarification. ‘World Dominion’ or ‘World Domination’ obviously convey something different from ‘World Power’; all the same and all grammatical incongruities notwithstanding, both terms are often used as synonyms.1 To illustrate the point: there is no need to elaborate further on the statement that Hitler wanted the Third Reich to achieve or regain world power status. This has never been in controversy, but in the early and mid-1980s Hitler’s foreign policy already gave rise to a widespread tendency abroad to interpret his ‘real’ aims as the ‘achievement of world domination’. Hitler’s often quoted dictum ‘Deutschland wird entweder Weltmacht oder überhaupt nicht sein’ should — so it was conjectured — be plainly read to mean: Germany must achieve world domination or it will perish.2
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-349-17891-9_8
The books you read will more than likely be prejudiced. The nazi's had an abundance of coal, which they turned into synthetic oil.
It was after Britain and France declared war that the nazi's realised that they needed a lot more and quickly. The Germans were not in the middle east before war was declared.
Maybe you should look at the big donors of cash into the labour party at the time, to understand why Attlee harassed Churchill into wanting a war with Germany.
Dr. Gregory Brew is a researcher and analyst based in Washington D.C. He is a fellow at the Metropolitan Society for International Affairs,
General Erwin Rommel, “the Desert Fox,” was reputedly the best tactician in the entire German Army. For years, he led his panzers across multiple campaigns in North Africa.
But what was a German army doing zipping across the deserts of Libya?
Simple: Rommel was trying to capture the Suez Canal, and with it the route to the precious, untapped oil fields of the Middle East.
From the deserts of North Africa to the icy waters of the Atlantic Ocean, the jungles of the South Pacific and the skies above Romania, World War II was defined by a struggle over a single resource - petroleum.
Without oil, modern mechanized warfare was impossible. It fueled the war effort of each major power, and battles over access and control of petroleum resources marked the war’s most important episodes—from the Battle of Stalingrad to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Hitler’s Dilemma
German fuhrer Adolf Hitler rose to power in the 1930s in the wake of the Great Depression - a cataclysmic economic crisis that affected the entire world, but which hit Germany especially hard. Amidst spiraling inflation and mass unemployment, Hitler preached a return to national greatness through conquest. Germany would dominate Europe, and in so doing capture all the resources it would need to become a self-sustaining, self-sufficient economic power.
Despite being one of the most powerful industrial nations on earth, Germany had no oil reserves. Furthermore, it lacked an empire - like the British - that would give it access to oil overseas.
In fact, in the 1930s oil production was dominated by a handful of countries—the United States, which accounted for 50% of global oil production, as well as the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Iran, Indonesia, and Romania.
But in order to fuel its industrial economy and power its growing war machine, Germany would need oil reserves - as German oil production was negligible.
Hitler had two choices: either it get by on alternatives - such as producing synthetic oil from coal, which Germany had in abundance - or secure oil through conquest.
Thus, the war in Europe was often fought over petroleum, which Hitler needed to build and sustain the German empire.
The ram wrote:Dukasaur wrote:You pose very interesting criteria for this category. "Impact on history and not on brilliant strategies." I think most people would say top military leader should be based on brilliant strategy, regardless of the final outcome. Impact on history should be reserved for "top political leader" or something, rather than a purely military leader. Nonetheless, rather that get sidetracked by this, I'll play along and go with "impact on history" as the main criterion.
1. Alexander the Great.
Unquestionably, shifted the centre of gravity of the ancient world from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean. Before Alexander, all the great empires, Babylonian and Sumerian and Akkadian and Persian and Assyrian, drew their power from the agricultural output of Mesopotamia. After Alexandria, for a short while the power of the Hellenic, Ptolomaic, and Punic empires was drawn from maritime commerce.
2. Cato the Elder
Reversed the great advances of the Hellenistic world. Created a new world order dominated by the cold and ruthless efficiency of the Roman pillage-state. There were many notable Roman generals, of course. Julius Caesar was probably the most famous, but Caesar was just another predictable bore, following the blueprint that Cato the Elder had mapped out.
3. Charlemagne
The paranoia of backstabbing Roman administrations had bred into generals that they could trust no-one. A leader had to be personally involved in every decision, personally present at every major engagement. That worked while Roman infrastructure made rapid travel possible, but once the roads fell into disrepair and long-distance travel became painfully slow, it was no longer practical for a leader to travel from one place to another to personally supervise everything. And, with literacy on the decline, transmitting written orders was not always reliable, for the recipients might be completely illiterate. Developing a system where an emperor could reliably delegate authority to his underlings without fear of being backstabbed was Charlemagne's great achievement, and it gave birth to the feudal system, which transformed history for 1000 years.
4. Cortez
Cortez did not create the technological superiority which Europeans enjoyed over the nations on other continents, but he was the first to map how technological superiority could be leveraged so that a tiny army could conquer an entire nation. In doing so he drew the road map not only for the Spanish Empire, but also the Portuguese, British, Dutch, and French empires.
5. Churchill
Churchill knew that the Nazis could not be allowed to survive. It wasn't so much that letting them conquer Europe would be irrevocable. They were corrupt enough that they could be expected to disintegrate soon after the conquest. But letting them win would perpetuate the attempts at conquest. Once the Nazis fell apart, someone else would try their hand at world conquest, and then someone else, and then someone else. The Nazis had to be defeated, and defeated by overwhelming co-operation between nations, to make the very idea of world conquest unthinkable. In this he was successful, and in the process created the United Nations, which although flawed, has been a roadmap for world peace. Though there have been many wars since then, few have been for territorial gain, and the ones that were generally gained only tiny slivers of land.
Churchill never wanted to fight the nazi's. He was actually the leader of a coalition government at the time and it was Clement Attlee who forced churchill. As for the nazi's intent of world domination, they didn't declare war. However, as a lefty I'm sure you won't let stupid facts get in the way of your intelligent insight.
jusplay4fun wrote:The ram wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:The ram wrote:Dukasaur wrote:You pose very interesting criteria for this category. "Impact on history and not on brilliant strategies." I think most people would say top military leader should be based on brilliant strategy, regardless of the final outcome. Impact on history should be reserved for "top political leader" or something, rather than a purely military leader. Nonetheless, rather that get sidetracked by this, I'll play along and go with "impact on history" as the main criterion.
1. Alexander the Great.
Unquestionably, shifted the centre of gravity of the ancient world from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean. Before Alexander, all the great empires, Babylonian and Sumerian and Akkadian and Persian and Assyrian, drew their power from the agricultural output of Mesopotamia. After Alexandria, for a short while the power of the Hellenic, Ptolomaic, and Punic empires was drawn from maritime commerce.
2. Cato the Elder
Reversed the great advances of the Hellenistic world. Created a new world order dominated by the cold and ruthless efficiency of the Roman pillage-state. There were many notable Roman generals, of course. Julius Caesar was probably the most famous, but Caesar was just another predictable bore, following the blueprint that Cato the Elder had mapped out.
3. Charlemagne
The paranoia of backstabbing Roman administrations had bred into generals that they could trust no-one. A leader had to be personally involved in every decision, personally present at every major engagement. That worked while Roman infrastructure made rapid travel possible, but once the roads fell into disrepair and long-distance travel became painfully slow, it was no longer practical for a leader to travel from one place to another to personally supervise everything. And, with literacy on the decline, transmitting written orders was not always reliable, for the recipients might be completely illiterate. Developing a system where an emperor could reliably delegate authority to his underlings without fear of being backstabbed was Charlemagne's great achievement, and it gave birth to the feudal system, which transformed history for 1000 years.
4. Cortez
Cortez did not create the technological superiority which Europeans enjoyed over the nations on other continents, but he was the first to map how technological superiority could be leveraged so that a tiny army could conquer an entire nation. In doing so he drew the road map not only for the Spanish Empire, but also the Portuguese, British, Dutch, and French empires.
5. Churchill
Churchill knew that the Nazis could not be allowed to survive. It wasn't so much that letting them conquer Europe would be irrevocable. They were corrupt enough that they could be expected to disintegrate soon after the conquest. But letting them win would perpetuate the attempts at conquest. Once the Nazis fell apart, someone else would try their hand at world conquest, and then someone else, and then someone else. The Nazis had to be defeated, and defeated by overwhelming co-operation between nations, to make the very idea of world conquest unthinkable. In this he was successful, and in the process created the United Nations, which although flawed, has been a roadmap for world peace. Though there have been many wars since then, few have been for territorial gain, and the ones that were generally gained only tiny slivers of land.
Churchill never wanted to fight the nazi's. He was actually the leader of a coalition government at the time and it was Clement Attlee who forced churchill. As for the nazi's intent of world domination, they didn't declare war. However, as a lefty I'm sure you won't let stupid facts get in the way of your intelligent insight.
Based on the several books that I have read(before today), Hitler did want to dominate and conquer much of the world, especially Europe. He wanted the OIL in the Middle East and hence his campaign in North Africa. So, RAM, you are wrong.Why Hitler's grand plan during the second world war collapsed
Two key factors undermined Germany's campaign: US involvement boosted the allies' arms-producing capabilities, while sheer Soviet manpower led to catastrophic defeat in Russia
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/08/hitler-germany-campaign-collapsed
This sources adds a BIT of credibility to Ram's hypothesis, but the basic direction, based on the preview page, is that Duk and I are indeed correct. Journal of Contemporary History
https://www.jstor.org/stable/260090?seq=1
Also:Abstract
Any discussion of Hitler’s alleged ‘programme’for achieving world dominion should be preceded by an attempt at terminological clarification. ‘World Dominion’ or ‘World Domination’ obviously convey something different from ‘World Power’; all the same and all grammatical incongruities notwithstanding, both terms are often used as synonyms.1 To illustrate the point: there is no need to elaborate further on the statement that Hitler wanted the Third Reich to achieve or regain world power status. This has never been in controversy, but in the early and mid-1980s Hitler’s foreign policy already gave rise to a widespread tendency abroad to interpret his ‘real’ aims as the ‘achievement of world domination’. Hitler’s often quoted dictum ‘Deutschland wird entweder Weltmacht oder überhaupt nicht sein’ should — so it was conjectured — be plainly read to mean: Germany must achieve world domination or it will perish.2
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-349-17891-9_8
The books you read will more than likely be prejudiced. The nazi's had an abundance of coal, which they turned into synthetic oil.
It was after Britain and France declared war that the nazi's realised that they needed a lot more and quickly. The Germans were not in the middle east before war was declared.
Maybe you should look at the big donors of cash into the labour party at the time, to understand why Attlee harassed Churchill into wanting a war with Germany.
Hitler's strategic program for world domination was based on the belief in the power of Lebensraum, especially when pursued by a racially superior society.[7] People deemed to be part of non-Aryan races, within the territory of Lebensraum expansion, were subjected to expulsion or destruction.[7] The eugenics of Lebensraum assumed the right of the German Aryan master race (Herrenvolk) to remove indigenous people in the name of their own living space.
The German concept of Lebensraum (German pronunciation: [ˈleːbənsˌʁaʊm] (About this soundlisten), "living space") comprises policies and practices of settler colonialism which proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. First popularized around 1901,[2] Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918) originally, as the core element of the Septemberprogramm of territorial expansion.[3] The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and Nazi Germany until the end of World War II.[4]
Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into Central and Eastern Europe.[5] The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy ('Master Plan for the East') was based on its tenets. It stipulated that Germany required a Lebensraum necessary for its survival and that most of the indigenous populations of Central and Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, extermination, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, Czech and other Slavic nations considered non-Aryan. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter.[6][7][8][9] Entire indigenous populations were decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany.[6]
The operation opened up the Eastern Front, in which more forces were committed than in any other theater of war in history. The area saw some of the world's largest battles, most horrific atrocities, and highest casualties (for Soviet and Axis forces alike), all of which influenced the course of World War II and the subsequent history of the 20th century. The German armies eventually captured some five million Soviet Red Army troops.[26] The Nazis deliberately starved to death or otherwise killed 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war, and a vast number of civilians, as the "Hunger Plan" worked to solve German food shortages and exterminate the Slavic population through starvation.[27] Mass shootings and gassing operations, carried out by the Nazis or willing collaborators,[g] murdered over a million Soviet Jews as part of the Holocaust.[29]
Users browsing this forum: No registered users