Let's talk about overrated generals. Why and how did they capture the attention of the pop history crowd despite their copious lack of success.
Pic related is most famous for a campaign that he lost as many battles as he won, defied his orders, wasted a shit ton of his supplies on attacks that went nowhere, and ultimately failed in every single one of its strategic aims.
Yes he's lauded as a general almost without peer, despite being a walking embodiment of the Peter Principle.
Who is your favorite overrated general?
>Yes he's lauded as a general almost without peer, despite being a walking embodiment of the Peter Principle.
I think him turning into a secular saint is based on
* The importance of Egypt (Suez Canal) to the British war effort,
* His involvement in the plot against Hitler, but most importantly
* Rommel wasn't involved in the Eastern Front, and so never got tainted by atrocities committed there
>*The importance of Egypt (Suez Canal) to the British war effort
I mean that Hitler never seriously considered how valuable Egypt was to the British war effort. IIRC he was only in North Africa to assist the floundering Italian efforts against British forces, he was never seriously supposed to seize the Suez Canal
>Didn't like Hitler
Which is why he
>Took personal command of Hitler's bodyguard on his pre-war foreign trips
>Would directly appeal to Hitler every time his superiors in the military establishment tried to reign him in.
>Was promoted at the direct insistence of Hitler.
>Was heavily involved in the training of the Hitler Youth in its proto-paramilitary stage.
True, he joined the july 20th plot, so he probably wasn't a Nazi by inclination, but he wholly supported the Nazi militarization of German society, and was certainly more than willing to ride the Nazi political machine against the establishment of the Wehrmacht generally.
There Zhukov i'm a great fan of him but the losses he took to get to Berlin were way too high compared to what they would have been if his army were lead by Rommel for example. I think he used more of his numerical superiority then anything else.
I often feel like hes the only ''clean'' general of germany during ww2.
More that he deferred to Italy's colonial ambitions in North Africa, being deeply skeptical of "Navalism", and he thought (probably correctly in this case) that the Eastern Front was the main front of WW2, and the one where the war was going to be won or lost in.
Egypt, as important as it was for coordinating the British Empire, wouldn't have knocked them out of the war had it fallen, and is hard to get to to boot.
Or at the very least been kept on a tighter leash. I'm not going to deny the man was tactically brilliant and an inspiration to his troops.
But he didn't have the patience for strategy, or concern for logistical issues, and putting him charge of a front, even a peripheral front, where he had to do those tasks meant he was a terrible man for the job he got. If there had been someone to tell him "no", you can't go to Tobruk and sit there for 8 months until the British build up enough force to beat the snot out of you, he'd have done a lot better in the theater he was in.
Not the guy you're responding to, but Leningrad, Vyzama, and Bagration showed he was capable of far more than just lel human waves.
The problem was, especially on offense, he tended to repeat his mistakes. He perennially thought that rapid maneuver and local surprise would be a good substitute for heavy bombardment with support arms like artillery.
Either you got a failure, a la the road to Berlin, which cost even more time and a lot of lives, or he'd advance further than the guys on either side of him, and he'd have to hold up to not expose his own flank. Doing this once would be forgiveable, but it's a hallmark of almost all of his offensives from 1943 onwards.
Deep battle was retarded. Building up local superiorities to mount multi-axial attacks at several different points (Each of which would require at least a 3:1 advantage at the point of contact) requires so much force that you can win with just about anything you do.
Which is of course one of the reasons why Zhukov never actually did Deep Battle, or convincingly advocated for it.
Didn't he play an important role in the Ardennes offensive that encircled the French and the BEF?
I'm not saying he was a better general than Guderian or Manstein, but his contribution shouldn't be overlooked because of >muh contrarianism.
This fucker is so overrated. He got lucky and had shitty opponents but the south will still suck his old man dick while shouting confederate propaganda.
>Didn't he play an important role in the Ardennes offensive that encircled the French and the BEF?
Not really. He did some stuff in the exploitation, but he had nothing to do with the breakthrough, and got numerous complaints from the other panzer divisional leaders because he kept stealing their supplies.
Jackson had balls, which is what many generals at the period seriously lacked.
Longstreet was far superior to all of his peers, he knew Pickett's charge was a bad fucking idea but Lee overruled him.
Maybe it's a good thing that he did or else we would have seen an entirely different war.
To be fair, his division was one of the first over the Meuse...though he managed that by stealing bridging equipment from a neighboring division. His division also stopped the only English armoured counter-attack.
>writes about his methods of thinking in combat, how he reacts to situations, and his past experiences all in one book
>releases it before the war
Bad move t b h. It probably didn't make much difference, but I still think it's funny that allied generals could've been reading it.
Not being an Einsatzgruppen fan or anything, but there was considerable agitation among the Egyptian populace about the risk of the Germans sweeping in.
Ironically, a lot of the problems the Arabs and Egyptians had with the Nazi regime was that they blamed them for making things rough enough on the Jews that they started immigrating to Palestine.
he lead an entire panzer division that formed the tip of the spear in france, and his armored warfare tactics were completely revolutionary. he also pioneered the use of the .88, using false flight tactics to draw enemies into ambushes with heavy anti tank guns. he was a great general, not erich von manstein or anything but he was definitely capable.
He knew the whole engagement at Gettysburg was folly, he begged Lee to move the army between the Union and Washington, forcing Meade to attack them.
Jackson was erratic, sometimes great, sometimes not.
>his armored warfare tactics were completely revolutionary
Pic related is somehow popular between a marginalized group of history revisionist despite the fact that he lost almost all the important battles against the U.S. during the Mexican-American war, and got himself captured by the texans during the texan revolution.
He was also a dictator when he ruled the country, but that's another story.
As you know! Moast of oua kameraden are shtehtioned in GREEHSS, Pruhpeared to bee shot daun by Allied fightas! Oua perimeter has been
pruhpeared in the even dat oua enehmies should be so bald and so foolish. We have plehced Flak 88, allowing for
muhltiple, simuln-tehneous and devashtehting defensive anti-pehnzer barrashes.
>three lines of autistic memespeak
>taking the joke this far
What was your favorite part: When he messed up the defense of the Phillipines, when he refused to defend the Phillipines, when he defended war criminals, or when he missed the entire PLA and nearly destroyed the Marine Corps?
>he also pioneered the use of the .88, using false flight tactics to draw enemies into ambushes with heavy anti tank guns.
Literally done by the Condor legion as early 1937. He didn't pioneer anything with regards to the 88.
I am surprised that he didn't end up being our first black president, though.
Custer had the good sense and decency to die during his major blunder.
MacArthur's career is basically if Custer ran away, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for it, and repeated little Big Horn on an even bigger scale.
And throw in bribery, defending enemy war criminals, and trying to negotiate personal pacts with foreign powers.
I didn't realize that anybody thought well of Santa Anna.
I just want to go on the record, and say that Sherman is tremendously overrated.
I supported the Abolitionist/Northern Cause, but committing war crimes and being a bandit does not make you a great general.
It makes you a thug.
Grant may have fed men into meatgrinders, but he was actually getting his mettle tested.
Proved Truman was incompetent and nothing but a moronic dog.
MacArthur was based.
"Patton may have said corn cob pipes are for faggots, but he died in a 20 mile an hour car crash"
Not either of them, but it's less that Patton made any terrible blunders, and more that he didn't actually do all that much that was that great, certainly not to be considered (as he often is by pop historians) the top American general, or even the top allied general in the ETO.
He was pithy and aggressive and made an interesting figure for the newspapers, but he certainly wasn't tactically or operationally adept as say, Devers, whom few have ever heard of.
I read his biography. I thought he's a hard-ass man and was a populist general. I don't know much about tactics and doubt this /pol/infested shithole does either but would really appreciate if you could offer some insight into Patton.
I understand why Doug MacArthur is a piece of shit, but again, that's for non-tactical reasons. Patton, I dunno.
I don't think anyone really overrates him. Stormin' Norman maybe, but not Powell.
International reception to the CSA was pretty cool from the start then pretty much stopped all together when they lost New Orleans in 1862. Economically there was little incentive to support the South as there were other sources of cotton and the North was a massive market for European goods.
>Proved Truman was incompetent and nothing but a moronic dog.
Your argument is that MacArthur was a good general, because he proved Truman was incompetent, because Truman fired him and replaced him with a more competent General.
>you could offer some insight into Patton.
In some ways he shared a similar set of personality and problems to Rommel. Brave, decisive junior/midlevel officer in WW1, promoted after the downsizing in the interwar years. Never really shook the mentality that got them their successes on the small scale, and then just assumed that the same tricks would work on a multi-divisional scale.
So he was aggressive, prone to snap decisions, had no compunction about stealing supplies from his allies, because logistics was something you competed for from the higher ups who doled out such things, and managed to get away with it some of the time through pure tactical skill. But that doesn't change the fact that they rarely had plans beyond "fight and hope to win whenever I bump into the enemy", it doesn't change that they often pushed further than they had the logistical tail to support, and the only reason, IMO, that Patton didn't run into a lot of the same problems Rommel eventually did is that the Germans by Cobra and onward, were almost perpetually on the verge of collapse and couldn't take advantage of the gaps in the lines he was opening up.
The most impressive thing Patton did was redirect his whole army and relieve 101st Airborne (as well as other American elements) at Bastogne. Does he personally deserve a lot of praise for this? Eh, a little bit.
>War crimes in an era where it wasn't even defined
Guys I found the butthurt southerner.
Next time you try to leave the union, prepare for the consequences that come with it, including total war and scorched earth tactics.
Enjoy freezing to death and your entire economy grinding to a halt when the pipelines are blown up.
>implying we wouldn't win round 2
Where do a majority of military recruits come from?
Where are the vast amount of private firearms?
Who has the largest land mass?
Suck shit northern kike
He was a very aggressive commander, which was unusual in the allied forces in Europe. Maybe not tremendously great, because his skills were never sorely tested, but a necessary man to have in the ETO.
OK, so first of all, understand that the Phillipines was supposed to be political exile for MacArthur.
He was placed in charge of maintaining security and order during the Bonus Army protests. Hoover meant "actually maintain security and order" and MacArthur took that to mean "go in with fire and bayonets"
So he get's put in charge of the Phillipines so he doesn't hurt himself and others. Now, the general staff plan for the defense of the Phillipines, is to retreat to Bataan and wait the war out.
They recognize this as their plan A, because of the massive advantages Japan would have in the outset of a Pacific War. The plan called for the Phillipine garrison to defend Bataan and tie up IJA forces until reinforcements arrive.
MacArthur decides fuck that, he's going to defend THE ENTIRE Phillipines. All 7,000 Islands. And to do that, he's going to take all the supplies and armaments centralized on the Bataan Peninsula, and distribute them all over the Islands.
Then when the war actually starts, he gets given a golden opportunity.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was meant to coincide to the hour with an attack on the Phillipines.
The weather wouldn't allow it. Saburo Sakai gives a great account of how fucked the Japanese expected to be during this. Because it was in such a way that while the Japanese couldn't attack the Phillipines, the American B-24 bombers COULD attack their airfields in Taiwan. Where all the Japanese aircraft were waiting to take off, with their plans on the runways, fueled up, and loaded with bombs. He could not, for the life of him, figure out why they weren't blown to all shit.
Washington ordered MacArthur to engage in hostilities with the Japanese immediately. He just does not do it until the Japanese attack the Philippines themselves.
I'd say that Patton being aggressive and also being a good leader worked hand in hand, his troops went further for him than maybe they would for other generals.
Who are some generals who were extraordinarily capable, then? Even ancient generals are cool. I'm just trying to ascertain what are good tactics and good generals. I always thought Patton was firmly in the good generals column.
>Washington ordered MacArthur to engage in hostilities with the Japanese immediately. He just does not do it until the Japanese attack the Philippines themselves.
Why doesn't he do it?
And were his troops and arms too widely spread out in the Philippines - is that what you're saying?
All that I've seen thorough sources on, but I have heard from one of my professors that MacArthur's bank account got a mysterious $10,000 deposit on December 7th. It is suspected that the president of the Philippines just bribed MacArthur to not attack the Japanese, in a futile hope that the Philippines could stay neutral.
But whatever the reason, he doesn't start shooting until the Japanese arrive. And low and behold FUCK. The Japanese have every possible advantage. They have naval and air superiority now, and they're able to land pretty much wherever they damn well please, and MacArthur's forces are scattered around trying to defend a giant mass of Islands.
So, then he decides NOW is the time to retreat to Bataan, and hold out there after all. But there's no longer any supplies at Bataan waiting for the army straggling in and retreating to here. So Bataan is going to surrender to the Japanese.
At this point, MacArthur is told to get out of there because it will just be incredibly embarrassing to have him (technically a Field Marshal) in Japanese custody.
He lobbies for and receives the Congressional Medal of Honor for fleeing the Phillipines. He tries to get the man he left in charge of Bataan court martialed for surrendering.
In the more political realm, MacArthur is noted for protecting Hirohito after this point. What most people don't know was that he didn't just protect him from the Americans, he protected him from the Japanese.
Even the imperial household wanted Hirohito gone. Even defenders of the imperial institution (which were less than 50% of the population in 1946) didn't really care about Hirohito personally. He was an asshole who tried to build an empire. Japan actually has a long tradition of killing leaders who are shitty.
Don't be mad that an independent Texas could crash this economy (with no survivors!)
>Who are some generals who were extraordinarily capable, then
Of course it's open to debate, but Generals that leap to mind are Longstreet, Manstein, O'Conner, Wellington, Slim, Guderian, Forrest, Marcellus, Fabius, Caesar amongst others. All of those are opinions, plenty of people will disagree I'm sure.
Bernard Montgomery was an excellent general, if a colossal asshole.
MacArthur froze up with indecision after Pearl Harbor. By distributing his forces so wide they were unable to effectively counter Japanese attacks; he also ordered their supplies to be put too close to the front lines which allowed the Japanese to easily disrupt resupply and capture them.
Texas' economy would crash soon afterwards due to the massive proportion of their economy tied into federal contracts, much less the portions of their GDP and PCI that come from federal money. Say good bye to one-third of your economy.
Was he working for the bankers?
Did he kill Patton?
Why didnt he take Berlin when he could?
Did he take orders from above or did he really want to split Berlin?
Did he realize he fucked up during his mandate as president?
Did Truman work also for the bankers or was he tricked with the promise of America's undisputed hegemony over the world promise?
So then the Korean War happens. And there's Inchon. Inchon is the cornerstone of the MacArthur myth. The embodiment of everything he's supposed to be.
A bold, intelligent thrust where the enemy least expected it, where everyone said it was impossible. The tides, the tides man!
Only someone as brash and self-certain as MacArthur could have pulled it off, especially in the face of naysayers from Washington.
But it's a myth for a reason: The Inchon landing was planned in 1946. General Staff planners had called for a withdrawal and reinforcement at Busan, and a landing at Inchon way back then, in the event of an invasion from North Korea.
Perhaps learning that these General Staff planners usually have good ideas, MacArthur implements the plan and takes the credit.
And keep in mind, this wasn't simply some super secret American tactic. No less of an idiot that Chairman Mao, who had no military assets in the region, urged Kim to reinforce the Inchon area. Kim, however, had gambled too far on this conquest militarily and politically, and could not afford to back down.
Then MacArthur fucks it up. He sends his forces North, and north, and north, despite the mounting warnings from Washington that it will provoke Chinese intervention. Including the Indian ambassador (who served at the De Facto PRC ambassador in Washington) telling the U.S. that it was going to invade.
Keep in mind, this wasn't just an advance North. It was a reckless, carefree race north. MacArthur wanted to present Washington and the world with a fait accompli. And as such, that required a northern advance without regard for things like supply lines, preparing for winter, mutual reinforcement, and reconnaissance.
That last part was part was particularly bad since he had appointed useless sycophants like Almond and Willoughby (the latter serving as his chief of intelligence do to his general skullduggery in Japan protecting war criminals).
That third of workers would be conscripted to fight off America. Problem solved.
Besides, we pay more in taxes than we receive back.
Of course, this is all assuming that America wouldn't let Texas (or a resurgent Confederacy) leave the Union in peace.
Now I'm completely oblivious about the internal political situation in the US, so I'm probably making a very stupid question, but is there any likelihood of this actually happening in the future?
So understand that the cover ups about intelligence pointing toward a Chinese invasion (such as U.S. army units capturing members of the PLA giving their name, rank and unit) not reaching MacArthur is because MacArthur constructed a vast apparatus to prevent information he didn't want to exist from reaching him. That was Willoughby's job.
So what happens is over a million men manage to SNEAK BEHIND American lines. It is a failure comparable to the opening days of Barbarossa.
Countless units are cut off, including the vast bulk of the U.S. Marine corps, near the Chosin Resevoir.
MacArthur orders them, rather then try to break out to the south and retreat, to try and break out TO THE WEST.
His response to being thoroughly inflitrated and encircled was to try and use his encircled units to launch a counter encirclement, go on the offensive, secure the Yalu, and then trap the Chinese forces in Korea.
The Pentagon flips it's shit and explains MacArthur can't sacrifice a branch of the Armed Service in this incredibly stupid idea.
And then yeah, when commanders like Ridgeway manage to pull shit together and not lose Seoul, MacArthur issues an announcement to the Chinese calling on them to recognize their defeat(???) and sabotaging a cease fire discussion.
He's finally removed from command for insubordination, which he had spent his whole career out of.
He's just lucky that he didn't get hanged at any point.
Yep, also good generals, though Napoleon couldn't stop fighting wars and Hannibal didn't know how to use his battlefield victories to secure total victory.
Actually not familiar with Subotai.
Anyway, there are lots of great generals, Patton just never did anything that seems overwhelmingly spectacular. He may have been capable of something spectacular, but he never really had the opportunity. The Allies were just so powerful by 1944-45 it was had to lose. He was a good general, but he is probably overhyped today, due to a lack of other interesting American commanders. Bradley was boring, Eisenhower was a Diplomat, Mark Clark was a dipshit.
Of the 2nd Punic War, sorry, a bit of an assumption. Fabius the Delayer and Marcellus who won the Spolia Optima. I don't recall their full names, my apologies. And yes, Caius Julius Caesar, who was assassinated at the foot of a statue of Pompey the Great.
Zhukov took all the credit for his victories
>He's just lucky that he didn't get hanged at any point.
Reckon there is still a political element to keeping him so revered? When will the nation turn the tide against this lunatic and start changing all the things named after him?
>Actually not familiar with Subotai.
Not the guy you're responding to, but you get a good number of people who think that he's the real strategic genius behind the Mongolian conquests, and the one who was really heavy into controlling the Eurasian steppe and linking China to the polities to the west and reaping the benefits of those trade routes.
Koniev got similar treatment.
You realize that most of those people receiving federal benefits are on either Social Security or disability, right? You're also not counting the parts of your economy that have federal contracts nor the expense of having to replace the functions of federal agencies.
He did his job with humanity, something not many men had in his era. Without MacArthur, Japan wouldn't be what it is today, he really won the hearts of the defeated Japanese over when he helped the Japanese recover.
Something amazing I've read about him some time ago, when MacArthur came into power in Japan, he freed all the political enemies of the Emperor, mainly the communists. When the communists were finally set free, they all amassed in large numbers in front of MacArthur's HQ and started chanting " Banzai MacArthur! Banzai Democracy! " over and over, showing their appreciation for this man. Everybody in Japan loved this guy, and this is coming from someone who generally hates Americans in history, but I can make an exception for MacArthur. Just an epic quote to show how great this guy was, by Roosevelt
>“Douglas, I think you are our best general, but I believe you would be our worst politician.”
Fabius should've done more with Hannibal literally in Italy. Things could've turned really sour if Hannibal gained more troops and Carthage wasn't a piece of shit.
The battle of Cannae is amazing.
Subotai rekt the Europeans (Pols, Hungarians, Kievan Rus) with an expeditionary force after wrecking my ancestors the Persians/Khwarezmian.
Oh absolutely. A huge part of why he ended up revered in the first place. It was politically impossible to admit the death march happened because we put a stupid lunatic in charge of the Philippines. Which happened because of the political issues surrounding the Bonus Army.
MacArthur's career is one of being kicked upstairs because it's easier for everyone involved than to admit how horrifying the system actually is.
But what could Hannibal do against Italy? Even Cannae didn't subvert the Roman vassal states en masse, he had no siege train, the Romans had an overwhelming naval advantage, and a much greater population base.
The only way Rome can lose is if they lose some bad pitched battles, deny Hannibal those opportunities and you will beat him, eventually.
Actually, he did have authority to do that. Because he was specifically ordered to by Marshal.
Of course, most of those same prisoners ended up BACK in prison, or purged from the media, under MacArthur's orders, completely without authority.
I'm saying that, in the event of a war to prevent secession, we would win.
The hit to the Texan (or wider Southern) economy is one of bureaucracy.
The hit to the wider American economy is one of the loss of a major strategic resource that has both military and civilian value. Not only that, but our strategic reserves are kept in Texas and Louisiana. Texas destroying the oil transport infrastructure on the Gulf Coast would have a much more devastating impact than when Saddam set the oil fields on fire in the 90's.
It's enough of a bluff to likely prevent a war and let the states secede in peace.
Fabius didn't have time too. His "Fabian" strategy worked brilliantly, and he may have been able to starve Hannibal's army into flight or combat on unfavourable terms. Unfortunately, I guess, he was only given the Dictatorship for 6 months (that being the usual time period) and the consuls in command afterwards just wanted to fight. Hence Cannae.
Not overrated but he was surely awful, and he basically ran the Union army for the first couple years
I find it funny that Abraham Lincoln was the best Union General until Grant became big
Like I said, it's a matter of opinion. I think Fabius was brilliant because he went against the grain of popular sentiment, the popular sentiment being "fight Hannibal!", and devised a clever strategy that was working quite well.
This. The way he handled the occupation of Japan was really something special, I'm convinced no one else at the time could've done the job anywhere near as well.
Despite what some people would have you believe MacArthur had a military career outside of the retreat from NK and the surrender on Bataan. He was successful everywhere else, and was by no means the only cause of those two defeats anyway.
Turning the Army of the Potomic into an actually effective fighting force deserves some props.
And honestly, a lot of his timidity is overblown. He relied on the often bad intelligence his people fed him, which told him he barely outnumbered the Army of Northern Virginia.
Then again, not winning the war outright at Antietam was pretty pathetic given what he had there.
It's not good generalship to wait it out for months while a massive scary army is roaming around your home land; It's good leadership/dictatorship - sure. But figt me irl 1v1 and Hannibal rekt everyone in Italy. I wouldn't mention Fabian as a great tactician for this reason.
Conversely, was Arminus any good?
He was good but not nearly as good as people make him out to be. Most of his victories would have been impossible without Jackson, Longstreet, and A.P. Hill.
Deep battle is fucking amazing and remains one of the best doctrines for conventional warfare. It was a doctrine that fit Soviet capacity extremely well and its still true with Russia today.
It's good generalship to know what your men are capable of. Fabius knew that fighting Hannibal's experienced troops was suicide, so tailored his tactics to the situation. In the end, he was proved right as the horrifying defeat at Cannae amply shows.
He believed his intelligence operatives who told him he didn't have the numbers to mount a successful attack. Disregarding the facts and relying on gut intuition is usually a bad thing, and garbage in, garbage out. It certainly didn't get guys like MacDonald or Burnside or Hooker any further.
It is if doing so wins you the war.
>Conversely, was Arminus any good?
Ok. I mean, you win at Teutoberg, you get famous, but there's little indication that he could repeat his performance. His actions during the inter-tribal conflicts between the Germans didn't display anything special.
Not really. Eisenhower did a lot of the reorganization after Kasserine, and while I'm not sure who did the re-training, but Patton got a battlefield command, not a re-training rotational assignment. He helped with morale and leadership, but not the training itself.
Deep battle relies on multiple axis of attacks that each of which you should have at least a 3:1 advantage.
As opposed to say, Blitzkrieg, which relies on focus to turn what might be an overall parity in force to get a local advantage and exploit that, Deep Battle only really works if you outweigh your opponent 3:1 or so, because you need that advantage pretty much up and down the line, as well as the resources to coordinate multiple thrusts.
Guess what? If you have a 3:1 advantage, you're probably going to win no matter what strategy you have. Embarking on one that relies upon you being massively stronger than your opponent or it doesn't work is bad strategy.
Don't pay heed to the fact he's an admiral and not a general.
There is nothing that Texas can do that won't cripple themselves worse. There are more places with oil than Texas and without that infrastructure Texas can't get its oil out. Plus if Texas secedes it means that their money is worthless. They're stuck trying to print their own currency while all pre-existing banking channels are closed to them. All those out-of-state corporations aren't going to stick around and in-state corporations will try to leave before their revenue dries up. Everyone who gets benefits from the government, and from the state considering how much federal money pays for state benefits, loses them immediately. Border control, DEA, Coast Guard, all those military bases, gone.
The USA calls Texas' bluff and it stands down or gets to be a third world nation overnight without a single shot fired. Texas isn't holding a gun to America, it's threatening to burn down the house while it's locked in the bathroom.
Rommel had some real skills. he was a hands on guy that's why he had a good rep. When he asked his troops to push he would push with them. He was also notable for disregarding certain top down orders from Hitler which isn't that amazing, but is still pretty neat. Also using 88 flak cannons as anti-tank was a brilliant move that had long lasting effects into the war.
They also never actually did Deep Battle as advertised, preferring to alternate thrusts, sometimes north, sometimes south. They only started this multi-axial crap in 1944-5, and yeah, by then, they had massive advantages, but it certainly wasn't the product of their retarded doctrine that got them there.
The 88 as anti-tank weapons dates from the Spanish civil war. It was literally standard doctrine.
>Also using 88 flak cannons as anti-tank was a brilliant move that had long lasting effects into the war.
The 88 gun was designed to serve as an anti-tank weapon. If using it as such is a "Brilliant move" then von Rundstedt's genius for using the k98 as a rifle is surely more noteworthy.
>Yeah. I can TOTALLY beat the 4.2 million Japanese in China with 500 bombers. Won't even need the Chinese.
>There are more places with oil than Texas
But there aren't other places in America with refining capabilities.
What few refineries there are in New Jersey would be dedicated to military use, and the civilians would be stuck using bicycles and horses.
What are you talking about? The 88s Germany used were officially designated "8.8cm Flak" followed by the year of introduction for whatever model was at hand. "Flak" is literally a shortened down form of the term for "aircraft-defense cannon." The first time it was used as an AT gun was during the Spanish Civil War which broke out several years after the German rearmament allowed for mass production of the 88s. It was never supposed to take out tanks, it only started doing that after some Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War got creative.
What is insane sums of money and aid from France that contributed to that country's soon to be collapse?
Got your basic point though, but we'd never have won if it weren't for them; or it'd gone on way longer to where the British would have practically gotten bored of being here.
Not him, but
A) I"m about 90% sure it was the Condor Legion, not Franco's boys himself that came up with the idea
B) The 8.8 was definitely built with the ability to rapidly depress the cannon into anti-tank mode, far more so than say, contemporary Soviet or American AA guns, which also showed decent performance against armor if they were pointed right.
That implies at least partial recognition of its use as an AT gun even in the factory.
His one big success was Pearl Harbor. Tactically it was a huge victory. But the whole concept behind it was that Americans had no backbone for war. They figured Americans would get sick of war after a few months, and sue for piece. The entire Japanese strategy revolved around it completely, and the whole premise was flawed.
All nations made some pretty huge errors in WWII. A lot of it amounts to monday morning quarterbacking. But Jesus the doctrinal errors the Japanese made are crazy.
Yamamoto also took his whole fleet on a useless expedition into the Indian ocean following Pearl. He dawdled in the Coral Sea. His Alaskan campaign was a huge failure, as was Midway, even if his codes hadn't been broken. He's definitely overrated.
That's not Yamomoto. It's Tōgō Heihachirō, who is most famous for his win over the Russian navy in 1905 at Tsushima (sp?).
Way before WW2. Before WW1 even, and most of the guy's career was 19th century ironclad stuff against the Chinese and Koreans.
Rommel is popular because he fought almost exclusively on the western front, against the UK and United States. This is important for two reasons:
1) it means he didn't do most of the naughty things Germans were famous for doing, like shooting Russian POWs, because he didn't have any. The fact that he was forced to kill himself after Operation Valkyrie adds to this image.
2) Countries like to hype up the generals they defeated (and portray their own allies as incompetent) in order to make their own achievements look more impressive. defeating a BONA FIDE MILITARY GENIUS (tm) reflects much better on you than defeating some jobber whose soldiers were too busy shitting themselves to death to bother fighting back.
Pretty much. And most tank losses came from field pieces, not the anti-tank guns fielded on tanks.
The thing is that when the T-34 showed up, it completely outclassed panzer IIIs and IVs and none of their guns were effective against it.
So they modified both the 75 mm Pak 40. And as the 88 was very effective in the anti-tank role, they used it with the Tiger. That's where the 88's notoriety really came from.
He's smart on a tactical level but not so much on a large scale. But hey we can always speculate. What if Hitler went with the idea to capture Malta (apparently Rommel originally opposed the idea, but later was in favor of it) and therefore the Germans had the supply advantage in the Mediterranean? Even thought the Desert Fox was shortsighted his tactical ability would be much more useful in a less numerically superior or perhaps even numerically inferior opponent. He's also that nice guy stereotype who didn't execute commando or Jewish POWs, treated prisoners relatively humanely, refused to deport French Jews and even wrote to Hitler about their treatment, and forced French workers on the Atlantic Wall to be paid. So yeah we got this magic general now. Perhaps it was just because his most famous front was relatively sparse in terms of civilian population.
He's revered in GB like if he single handedly won Napoleonics war. In reality, he only fighted in secondary theater and his greatest achievement was to hold long enough for Prussian to come save the day.
He's not a bad general but a lot of generals come before him when it come to competence. Those generals who are totally forgotten. Which is why I consider him over-rated.
When you include Louisiana, it's 31% of America's refineries. When you include other states likely to join a resurgent confederacy, it's 42% of America's refineries.
Then look at how big they are. 3 of the refineries in Texas and Louisiana are putting out 500,000 barrels a day. Most other states are less than 100,000.
Plus consider the sheer size of the Port of Houston and the Port of South Louisiana.
Realistically, you're looking at America losing 60% of their oil production and transport capabilities. Even then, much of the rest is in California, not the east coast, so it would have to be transported across the country.
It's enough of a hit to discourage any sort of war to prevent secession.
>Napoleon's bleeding ulcer
Considering that he was masterful on both the tactical and strategic level while making do with a relatively small army of questionable quality, iffy supply line and near-indifference from Britain itself I'd say he deserves most of his credit.
>greatest achievement was to hold long enough for Prussian to come save the day
>forgetting Assaye, Bussaco, lines of Torres Vedras, Salamanca, Vitoria and others
His arrogance and determination to beat the Yanks to Germany cost the Allies dearly, in the end they didn't break through to Arnhem until the last month of the war. The whole campaign was poorly planned and executed, too much was left to chance and ideal conditions.
Guess I was a bit too abstract.
Why discuss any general born after guns were invented? Guns turned battles from complex operations requiring legitimate tactics and decision making to bloodbaths. Especially after WW1.
>Implying he didn't do much more than he was asked with a force inferior in numbers and supplies.
Lol. Did those things actually get recorded as being said, or is it another shitty maymay that Stephen Ambrose essentially made up by taking the words of very old men far too literally?
That book/series was riddled with more mistakes and inaccuracies than I cared to remember. Entertainment wise still 9/10 though, just not very accurate.
If it actually happened, yeah, I'd be beyond impressed. Realistically, modern wars are just too chaotic for a human being to be able to do well, though.
Also just realized what a clusterfuck of a post I made, sorry about that.
33% actually and if we go with the entire PADD III district as seceding you only get 40%.
You switched from Texas seceding to Texas and the rest of the South. Which going by your initial argument, Texas gives more to the USA than it gets in return, defeats the purpose of Texas seceding as it now has to support additional states that receive more than they give. You are also ignoring the argument that Texas can't inflict economic damage without receiving more in return from the same actions. If Texas leaves the USA takes a 10% hit to its economy while Texas takes a 32% hit in return.
He'd have been a God-tier divisional commander of a Panzer division under Guderian and his 2nd Panzer group in Russia 1941.
Shit like that is what he was born to do. It's like how I'm good at refinishing old guns, someone noticing that, and making me the owner of a gunsmithing shop. Just doesn't get to work that way.
he never said that. In fact he was quite pro nazi when they first assumed power. He rode the nazi train to success just like most other generals who just went along.
the only reason he's regarded as anti-hither is because a conspirator who failed to kill himself muttered "rommel" and that got the gestapo on rommels back.
>decent divisional commander
remember were did the ghost division named came from? he didn't follow orders and move when he wasn't suppose to do, I think because the supply lines were overstretch
correct me if you want
He was independently minded: saw an opportunity and went for it. With a division it isn't as massive of a deal if it doesn't pan out; but it's got horrific consequences if you apply the same logic to an entire theater of war..which he did.
>When have two "first-rate" powers ever gone against each other by themselves?
To answer that, we have to find out when the idea of alliances and trade was invented...which I'm pretty sure never didn't exist.
I meant about the 7th Panzer Division in France but...we must consider that he did kick some british ass during Battleaxe
Also remember that the australian and reinforces arrived just in time during El-Alamein, Rommel actually won the first battle of El-Alamein
My point is that saying the US and UK have never won against an equal world power by themselves is pretty meaningless, because no one else has either. Major wars involving powers that large are almost always too complex for there to simply be two combatant nations.
>Pic related is most famous for a campaign that he lost as many battles as he won, defied his orders, wasted a shit ton of his supplies on attacks that went nowhere, and ultimately failed in every single one of its strategic aims.
u fuckin wot m8
The only reason Rommel even had to BE in Africa is because Italy was getting its shit pushed in by the Royal Navy.
Then he got cut off and "lost" while "wasting supplies" trying to capture the oil in Egypt. Ran the entire allied force in circles stalling for time, and you call that overrated?
>Italy was getting its shit pushed in
If I was Hitler in the early war period, I'd be so pissed at Mussolini trying and failing to copy and be cool like me...even though I copied and tried to be cool like him originally, I just did it WAY better.
Seriously, Italy as an ally has to have been one of the shittiest bargains of alliences in all of WWII.
Actually, most tank losses came from mines, but fixed ATGs were #2.
I'm not so sure that taking Malta would have done all that much. Check out this paper, page 12.
A lot more of Rommel's supply problems came because "it's a really fucking far away over the desert" than because of what Malta did.
>Implying he didn't ignore his orders, strategic sense, or the advice of literally everyone around him to embark on an ego trip that got him nowhere.
And that they pulled out a bunch of troops to send to Greece and Kenya at exactly the wrong moment.
There was no oil in Egypt. Even if there were, it's too fucking far away for him to get to when his logistical nodes are really just in tripoli, and there's no rail network for grand offensives.
He could have stalled for a hell of a lot of more time if he stayed in Cyrenica and not wasted all that fuel and spare parts chasing the British across worthless desert.
Italy chose to take on shit alone, that they couldn't handle alone.
Germany did not force Italy to fight the Greeks or forced them to pick a fight with the British in Africa. Although to be fair, the Brits and Italians fighting was an eventuality; but it could have probably been put off.
Oh, I don't mean to imply that if not for Japan then the U.S. would have stayed neutral, but unlike Italy, which was pretty damn incompetent, Japan actually had the abilities to do something, and just didn't because their heads were so far up their own asses they needed clear navels to be able to see.
Pic related. How many cruisers do you think you need to interdict Vladivostok? 3? 4? Out of the 50+ the IJN had and were useless for the sort of carrier war that was raging? Minimal effort, a fuck ton of results, either the Americans stopping the single biggest pipeline to the single biggest front, or they start having to mega convoys, something that's virtually guaranteed to get carriers killed trying to force a passage.
The Italian fleet had quite a few problems in both training and equipment. Sure, the ships were fast and the guns were big, but they had shit-tier sighting, and didn't train for night operations at all. And Il Duce's insistence that carriers were useless in the med created a situation where their navy had 0 planes, and they were never up to coordinating with the air force for real naval-air cooperation.
Of course, Crete was only strategically relevant because Hitler was afraid of the British using it as a base to strike Ploesti from.
And that risk only came about because someone declared war on Greece after demobilizing his army and letting said Greeks push into Albania and then ask for help from the British.
My grade 11 history teacher acted like she wanted to suck his dick
Vimy was cool and all but he didn't control that much about it
Luckily my prof at uni agrees with me so hope in Canadian education system
I dig this map. Off the topic of Japan, but, KRIEGSMARINE WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU DOING NOT SINKING THOSE SHIPS? Pathetic kill rate.
I wish the Germans got more navally invloved when it came to fighting the Russians: their surface fleet would have been way more effective there than hiding or dodging the British surface fleet.
Even so, how much do you think he was getting through plunder? His big haul when he finally took Tobruk in 1942? 5,000 tons of stuff, most importantly some 1,400 tons of fuel.
Over the course of the campaign, from June 1941 till October 1942, his HQ on the continent dispatched a bit shy of 1.2 MILLION tons of supply for his uses. Granted, not all of it got there, but the vast majority of Rommel's logistical troubles, as well as the need to live off of plundered British stocks, was because of his own lack of strategy.
>German also never developed a plane specifically for maritime patrols.
Well, the problem was that by the time the U.S. got into the war, the Kriegsmarine was down to 3 battleships if you don't count those two ridiculous pre-dreadnoughts, and the Scharnhorst and Gnisenau were undergunned. They had I believe 7 cruisers to stake on Atlantic operations ,not counting the Auxiliary ones.
Against that, they were facing, IIRC, 3 carriers, 21 battleships, and well over 60 cruisers.
To be honest, pretty much all of the capital ship sorties by Germany were bad ideas. Probably better would have been to use the fleet in being concept to supplement the u-boats. You saw what happened to PQ 17 just on the mere suspicion that the Tirpitz was nearby. If you've got 4 BB, 12 cruisers, and supporting ships, either the British are going to have to send half the fleet with each convoy, or run the risk that every so often, one gets gobbled up by the entire Kriegsmarine.
>Granted, not all of it got there, but the vast majority of Rommel's logistical troubles, as well as the need to live off of plundered British stocks, was because of his own lack of strategy.
How is being cut off from mainland Europe part of his own lack of strategy? Securing the ocean wasn't his mission.
Again, read the pdf
The vast majority of his supplies made it in to Tripoli, The absolute worst month still had 30,000 tons of supplies disembark. He wasn't cut off.
He had enough material to perform his mission, which was to preserve a presence in Cyrenica for as long as possible. Embarking on a grand crusade in a futile attempt to conquer Egypt when he had no means other than trucks to move supplies from Tripoli to Tobruk is just stupid.