Conquer Club

I will list my (current) Top Five military leaders of all times, as inspired by ConfSS. You can list them in order and you can give your rationale, if you wish. You can even name your Top Ten, but let's not go crazy and name 100 or even 50. THAT is TOO MUCH to read and my pea brain cannot count past 10.

My main criteria is their impact on history and not necessarily on brilliant strategies or use of new technologies. (Note the addition of necessarily to the criteria on 5/7/21.)

But JUS to get this ball rolling, here is my Top FIve, in no specific order:

Genghis Khan,
Alexander the Great,
Napoleon,
Attila the Hun, and
Julius Caesar.

Honorable Mention to Robert E. Lee and to Sun-Tzu

BTW: I did read and post about Great Naval battles in this Forum, but did not see this as topic here. Does anyone see an earlier thread on this topic?

Please see:
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=225615&p=5022225&hilit=Naval+battles#p5022225


JP

I prefer the defensive strategists. #1 Zhukov. #2 Dowding #3 Mannerheim #4 Charles Martel #5 Heinrici

Hannibal from Carthage should be on any list of offensive minded leaders.

That said I found the Punic Wars 1, 2 and 3 most exciting. Most people overlook the Mercenary War between 1 and 2. It is a true gem.

1. Trump
2. Napoleon
3. Caesar
4. Sun Tzu
5. Lloyd Toulmin Chalker

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.

HitRed wrote:Hannibal from Carthage should be on any list of offensive minded leaders.

Hannibal was tactically brilliant, one of my favourites. He definitely doesn't fit the bill laid out by the OP as some who has had an impact on history. The Romans were busy dismantling Carthage before Hannibal, and they returned to dismantling Carthage after Hannibal. His war gave only a brief respite to Carthage, and all his tactically brilliant victories changed nothing.

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.

-------------# 1) Napoleon....Was the Greatest at Battlefield Typography....Not to mention...He was captured Twice and allowed to live both times...His Foes...respected him...Their is no higher Honor...than being respected by a Foe...Most likely the only commander...Twice captured and allowed to live...Before and After Napoleon,some were let go once,most were killed after they were caught....Ancient ROME would parade their captured leaders through the streets of Rome....In WW2 ...Downed U.S. airman were put in a Japanese Zoo...for people to Look at like a captured animal....So ,once again, Napoleon's greatest quality...How he was able to win over the respect of his enemies as well as his people,who didn't turn on him,when he was caught....
-------------#2) Julius Caesar...And Alexander The Great...Both An equal tie...for 2nd....
-------------#3) Hannibal Barca...For he gave us The term Battle of Annihilation at Cannae...What is neat,Sitting Bull used the same Tactic against Custer 2,000 years later at Little Big Horn, no way of ever knowing of Hannibal...
-------------#4) The Desert Fox....Erwin Rommel....The Wizard of Flanking his enemy...He would appear out of thin air... Respected by the Allies who wished he fought on our side...
--------------#5) 4 way tie....Robert E. LEE,Vo Nguyen Gaip, George Washington, Erik Von Manstien...For their Defensive tactics...Von Manstien gave us The Mobile Defense... Winston Churchill , Eisenhower, Zhukov...spoke on his behalf...defending him at his trial after WW2...

--------Top 5 American Generals...
-----#1)Robert E. LEE...So great,he was asked to lead Both armies of a war,when does that ever happen ... ...
-----#2) George Washington...Along with Gaip...won their wars by retreating...
-----#3) 2 Way tie... George S. Patton and Dwight D. Eisenhower...
-----#4) Douglas Macarthur...gave us island hoping and Inchon,Korea
-----#5) A 2 way tie...Ulysses S.Grant...Thomas STONEWALL Jackson
----------Benedict Arnold just misses top 5 ,if they had The Congressional Medal of Honor in his time....When he did fight for America...He would have won The Medal of Honor 4 times over....Yes,Really.... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

-----Khan and Hun...were leaders who led by might not strategy...As for Sun Tzu...It is thought of,even by the Chinese...There was no Sun Tzu...His book is thought to be made up of many Generals...He is a pen name....Much like the Bible is made up of many writers....But The Art of WAR...is the Bible of Strategy....In fact ,the real Bible is a book of History and Strategy...I know what you said J4fun...But, Strategy shapes History...and it's Leaders....

1. Mel Gibson
2. Peter Sellars
3. George C. Scott
4. Kirk Douglas
5. Robert Duvall

Honorable mention to Bruno Ganz for his influence on meme culture

Thanks, everyone.

I should have said NOT NECESSARILY brilliant strategy or use of new technology as my criteria. I agree with Duk that strategy, or at least an excellent grasp of the Arts of War (not necessarily that written by Sun Tzu), are necessary to have wins militarily.

So I will now EDIT that criteria. When starting this thread, I was hoping for a discussion of military leaders, the impact of those leaders, and history. Thanks for making me aware of the incongruity there, Duk.

I think that Robert E. Lee fits the bill of not changing the arc of History. He tactical knowledge and most of his brilliant strategies (except Gettysburg) only delayed the Union/Northern victory.

I always admired Hannibal against the Romans, but felt, as Duk already said, that his efforts really did not change the arc of History. Rome eventually won. (The Mercenary Wars, of which I know little, because I never studied the Punic Wars, to me was the inflection point in that epic struggle, based on what I read last night.)

JUSPlay

--------Duk is wrong when he said, Hannibal didn't effect the World...ROME was able to defeat Carthage,making ROME More powerful...A greater Empire....Which The USA is modeled after.....
-----------But more important to the story of Hannibal.....The only way to make him leave Italy,he was never defeated in Italy...The leader FABIAN came up with his strategy not to give Hannibal a battle....But The Senate of Rome turned from his strategy.... Allowing HANNIBAL his greatest Victory at Cannae.....The Senate of Rome went back to the strategy that is now known as the FABIAN defense.....Why? Is this strategy World changing...... Without Hannibal ....it would have never been adapted as a strategy.....
----------The USA was formed and was allowed to succeed against The Head Empire of the world at the time....Great Britain,England.....As England ruled the World and the Seas....When Gen.Washington used the FABIAN strategy.......To bring 13 colonies Victory over England...And Today...Have become The Leader of the World....Without the Hannibal in Italy war...The FABIAN strategy......There would be no win against England by the Americans....Which is probably one of the Greatest World changes ever.... Ironically....Gen. Gaip.of Vetinam...would use the same strategy against The USA,you think America would have picked up on a strategy that brought it Independence like 200 years earlier ....Come on WEST POINT...what the hell happened ...Like I said, STRATEGY shapes the world....... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

Wikipedia - Fabian Strategy

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."

For nearly 15 years Hannibal played in (some say owned) Rome's backyard. Keeping an intact army, deep within another Empire AND WINNING BATTLES, for 15 years is quiet impressive.

The Fabian strategy never defeated Hannibal but slowly moved Hannibal away from Rome.

From what I have read historians tend to agree Washington was influenced by Fabian vs. Hannibal.

I want to add George C. Marshall to the list.

Marshall was US Army chief of staff during WWII, meaning he was the superior to Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley, MacArthur, and many other American military leaders in the US Army. He also held many important roles in the US Government in post-WWII. His European Recovery Program, later called the Marshall Plan, helped Western Europe rebuild after WWII and set the stage for the EU today (with the work by the Europeans themselves, of course). He later won the Nobel Peace Prize. Although he did not win a major battle commanding troops on the field in WWII, his leadership was a very important part of the victory by the Allies over Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. His resume is very impressive.

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.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-C-Marshall

also, for a more succinct summary:
https://history.defense.gov/Multimedia/Biographies/Article-View/Article/571266/george-c-marshall/

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.

I read a bit on El Cid. He indeed was a great commander on the battlefield, but I am not convinced he is a Top Five Guy. His battles were against the Moors (Muslims) in Spain around 1100, but the Moors stayed in Spain until defeated in 1492 (an eventful year) by Ferdinand and Isabella. (On a historical side note, their daughter was Henry VIII's first wife.)

Shortly after the death of El Cid, the Moors regained Valencia. Though regarded as a Spanish hero, he did not change the arc of History, not in my mind anyway.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid

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.

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

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.

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.

You called the books I have read "likely be prejudiced" BUT you cite nothing? I offered you a Newspaper article and 2 scholarly articles and you offer ONLY your opinion? Maybe you need to examine more closely your opinion and why it is prejudiced.

And turning coal into oil or gasoline for fuel for engines is not easy. It requires lots of high heat and that in itself is not efficient.

MORE sources to back my POINT, not jus my simple opinion:

How Oil Defeated The Nazis
By Gregory Brew - Jun 05, 2019, 6:00 PM CDT

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.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Oil-Defeated-The-Nazis.html

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.

Churchill's opposition to the Nazis began long before the coalition government. As early as 1932, when Hitler was not even in power yet, Churchill was sounding the alarm and predicting not only that Hitler would eventually sieze power in Germany, but that he would become a menace to peace across Europe.

When Churchill published The Truth About Hitler in November of 1935, he (Churchill) was still a backbencher, out of power and very much out of favour with the Baldwin government. Nobody at that time was expecting that Churchill would ever be Prime Minister, but Churchill was very much aware that it was unlikely that the Nazis could be tamed by diplomatic means, but would eventually have to be fought militarily.

Four and a half years later, when Churchill's star had risen high and the coalition government was becoming imminent, one of the main reasons Churchill jumped at the chance to lead it was that it would give him an opportunity to put down the Nazi menace that he had spent years warning people about. Atlee was in favour of the war, that is true, but his opinion would not have made any difference. The coalition government was formed seven months after the war began.

I just watched two episodes of Barbarians Rising. Started with Hannibal then Spain. Roman conquest from the eyes of the conquered. Quality. Spain is very interesting.



Spain

Germany

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.

You called the books I have read "likely be prejudiced" BUT you cite nothing? I offered you a Newspaper article and 2 scholarly articles and you offer ONLY your opinion? Maybe you need to examine more closely your opinion and why it is prejudiced.

And turning coal into oil or gasoline for fuel for engines is not easy. It requires lots of high heat and that in itself is not efficient.

MORE sources to back my POINT, not jus my simple opinion





I agree with you on virtually everything you say here. The only point I'm trying to make is did the nazi's intend on world domination?

They were doing very well with their own economy, infrastructure and standards of living for the average Joe. They had their own resources, enough to continue their economic rise

Of course, once war was declared they needed a hell of a lot more resources to enable the war machine to be competent. Hence, their appearance in north Africa.

It can only be about a personal opinion on whether or not Hitler would have went further than just uniting the German people, displaced into other countries after the Versailles treaty. I see no point in offering up links to opinions.

----------------- Actually The Ram......Is correct........In the Beginning.....Hitler just wanted to Crush and make The Soviet Union part of The German Empire.....He did not war with the West....He nipped here and there to feel out the West to see how far he could go....He hated communists/The Soviet Union ,Germany and Italy help Franco of Spain,beat the Russian backed Spanish Commies,...Hitler wanted the vast resources of Russia....The oil fields he had his eye on ,were in The Caucasus....At the time war broke out... Germany got most of it's oil from Romania....Sure if Hitler would have waited for his Wonder Weapons...Who knows where the war would have gone....
--------------He had no interest in the Middle East at the start of war..... Mussolini dreamed of a New Roman Empire....That area was left to Italy...It was only after the British smashed The Italians....That Hitler had to send Rommel to bail Mussolini out....Rommel wasn't supposed to go on the offensive....Rommel went anyway...With lighting results...,The Afrika Korps lead by Rommel ,Pushed the British back,.Happy by Rommel's Success ....Hitler came up with a plan...Were Rommel would hit the Suez and the Middle East....Troops from Russia would drive South Through The Caucasus Region and Join up With Rommel in a Pincer move...We all know how that was another of Hitler's blunders...
-------------Hitler describe his own dream to conquer Russia In his own words in the 1920's.......As for WW2.....No one expected America to throw their hat in the ring...Or Japan to Attack America,everyone thought ,Japan would attack Russia if anyone...The War started in 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria....Then in 1935 Italy Invaded Ethiopia...Germany began to take The Rhineland back in 1936...Then more unopposed....Stalin began to take land....He was stuffed by little Finland in the Fire and Ice war of 1940....Which Hitler saw a weak Russian Foe...not being able to knock off Finland.....Japan started WW2...in 1931 and it ended with Japan Sept 2nd 1945...
--------------As for Germany...Had the League of Nations stood up to Japan in 1931...The War could have been stopped....Had England and France Stood up to Hitler ,in 1936 when German troops the war could of been stopped....Had England,France,The League of Nations stood up to Italy in 1935...The war could have been stopped....But Germany had no plan to attack the West...until War we under way...Hitler was hoping to Attack Russia in the mid 1940's....England and France...doing nothing led to Poland 1939...Which is not the start of WW2....But the end of Hitler's plan to Conquer Russia in the mid 1940's....All in All..for the most part...The ram was right... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... ...

Info on ‘living space’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

HitRed wrote:Info on ‘living space’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

from the source cited here by HR:

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.

here is the opening part of the same source:

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]

If dominance and take over of Slavic lands and nations was the primary goal, why attack France and the Low Countries?

AND Hitler and the Nazis STARVED many people (as did Stalin of Ukrainians). Hitler (et al) starved about 3 million of the some 5 million Russian/Soviet POWs. And of course the war caused the death of many Russian civilians, many by starvation. The starvation was part of the strategy to dominate and resettle the those lands with Germans. And we know of the Holocaust. Hitler had to be stopped and DEFEATED for the sake of many in Europe and the rest of the world.

regarding the war between Germany and USSR in WW2:

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]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#cite_note-FOOTNOTESnyder2010175%E2%80%93186-33

I agree that Rommel went to North Africa to bail out Mussolini and the Italians. I had not read of the POSSIBLE goal of taking Middle East oil fields until recently. Of course, most of what I read about WW2 is from the American, and likely, too, the British perspectives.

Whether Hitler intended World or European or "only" central and eastern European domination does not really make a big difference to me. Hitler had to be defeated. Until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the US had no MAJOR reason to go to war. Yes, FDR did Lend-Lease for Britain, but Hitler did not go after US Shipping in the Atlantic BIG TIME until after Pearl Harbor.

So apparently I quote facts and The Ram can only quote or spout opinions.

And ConfSS agrees with those opinions? Does he therefore ignore facts?