BF2S Forums Which is Your Favorite General/Military Leader in History?

Ollivier North

sergeriver wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Alexander lived more than 2000 years ago, you can't compare him to Hitler.  Alexander was a conqueror, he didn't kill people for pleasure, and Hitler killed millions of people coz of their origin.

Bullshit. Alexander killed people because of their origin too. If they weren't Greek, they died. I can compare the two because they essentially did the same thing, but because Alexander did it 2000 years ago he's admired for it while Hitler is looked at as the spawn of Satan.

I don't know if you are attacking ATG or defending Hitler or both things.

I'm just trying to point out that people like ATG, Caesar, etc performed acts near identical to Hitler yet people will glorify people like ATG/Caesar simply because they came from a time when war and conquest was more acceptable. I on the other hand will recognize that what they did was equally as bad and will not look at them with admiration.

I'd never defend Hitler. That scumbag should've been on the other end of my grandpas scope.

You people do realize that Rommel, Manstein, von Rundstedt and Wittman were Nazis, right?  You know!  The people who waged the largest, costliest war in human history.  And helped prolong the Holocaust?

If you're looking for quality, then why did they lose?  Because the Allied generals were better!  Our top guys: Eisenhower, Monty (yes, Monty), Bradley, Devers, Harold Alexander and Mark Clark, led our armies to victory over those monsters.  Patton deserves special praise for kicking THE most ass of any of Allied general in Europe.   The Soviets, led by Marshall Zhukov, deserve special praise for the heavy cost the Soviet Union incurred in the war against the Fascist powers. 

There can't be any nostalgia for the Nazis - they started a war that killed millions.  They deserve our hatred, not admiration, even if some contemporaries did.  If there was any German officer who merits our praise, it was Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, the man who almost killed Hitler.

KillerKane0 wrote:

You people do realize that Rommel, Manstein, von Rundstedt and Wittman were Nazis, right?  You know!  The people who waged the largest, costliest war in human history.  And helped prolong the Holocaust?

If you're looking for quality, then why did they lose?  Because the Allied generals were better!  Our top guys: Eisenhower, Monty (yes, Monty), Bradley, Devers, Harold Alexander and Mark Clark, led our armies to victory over those monsters.  Patton deserves special praise for kicking THE most ass of any of Allied general in Europe.   The Soviets, led by Marshall Zhukov, deserve special praise for the heavy cost the Soviet Union incurred in the war against the Fascist powers. 

There can't be any nostalgia for the Nazis - they started a war that killed millions.  They deserve our hatred, not admiration, even if some contemporaries did.  If there was any German officer who merits our praise, it was Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, the man who almost killed Hitler.

I think you will find that Rommel was NOT a Nazis. Get your facts straight, he also was most superior general in WWII, if Hitler hadnt killed him they might not have lost so badly.

Monty copied Rommel, Rommel introduced the first system of land and drive bombers. He revolutionised warfare.

I think you will find that Rommel was NOT a Nazis. Get your facts straight, he also was most superior general in WWII, if Hitler hadnt killed him they might not have lost so badly.

Monty copied Rommel, Rommel introduced the first system of land and drive bombers. He revolutionised warfare.

Get your facts straight!  Both Monty and Rommel borrowed ideas from others.  Monty built his success on what Auckinlek had created beforehand, and using First World War tactics.  Rommel had scarcely touched a tank before 1939, and succeeded mainly because of inept British units in North Africa, and his own leadership skills.  Once faced with a superior force at El Alamein, Rommel ran like the wind from Egypt back to Tunisia.

Rommel was grossly overrated, but worst of all he was THE ENEMY and must always be seen in that context.

KillerKane0 wrote:

I think you will find that Rommel was NOT a Nazis. Get your facts straight, he also was most superior general in WWII, if Hitler hadnt killed him they might not have lost so badly.

Monty copied Rommel, Rommel introduced the first system of land and drive bombers. He revolutionised warfare.

Get your facts straight!  Both Monty and Rommel borrowed ideas from others.  Monty built his success on what Auckinlek had created beforehand, and using First World War tactics.  Rommel had scarcely touched a tank before 1939, and succeeded mainly because of inept British units in North Africa, and his own leadership skills.  Once faced with a superior force at El Alamein, Rommel ran like the wind from Egypt back to Tunisia.

Rommel was grossly overrated, but worst of all he was THE ENEMY and must always be seen in that context.

I have studied the N.Africa campaign in great detail. You are talking shit. Rommels retreat was an incredible feat in itself, he lost hardly any of his force and held off his pursuers till he could reform his battle line. You clearly no little to nothing on this subject if you think he "ran like the wind". He succeeded in N.Africa due to his Blitzkrieg tactics.

Also its Auchinleck and he didnt build anything. He was not a great general in the slightest sense as he refused to change the way he would use his army to fight warfare.

Your "The enemy" comment is also the most retarded i have ever seen, the soldiers in N.Africa on both sides had great respect for each other. Rommel and Monty were two of the few generals who actually counted each and every man as important and not just a number. The N.Africa campaign is know as "the war without hate".

Last edited by Vilham (2007-02-24 10:16:22)

I have studied the N.Africa campaign in great detail. You are talking shit. Rommels retreat was an incredible feat in itself, he lost hardly any of his force and held off his pursuers till he could reform his battle line. You clearly no little to nothing on this subject if you think he "ran like the wind". He succeeded in N.Africa due to his Blitzkrieg tactics.

Then why did the Axis lose in North Africa?  All he did was hold the Allies off for a while.  In fact, Hitler withdrew Rommel because of the looming disaster.

Auchinleck (yes thank you) held Rommel off at first El Alamein, only to be relieved by Churchill and replaced by Montgomery. 

There's no such thing as a "war without hate".  Anger still seethes years later.  Besides, they were the Nazis - the same people who enslaved most of Europe and murdered tens of millions of people.  To place them as equals to the Allies is disrespectful of our veterans and those who made the ultimate sacrifice to end fascism.

KillerKane0 wrote:

I have studied the N.Africa campaign in great detail. You are talking shit. Rommels retreat was an incredible feat in itself, he lost hardly any of his force and held off his pursuers till he could reform his battle line. You clearly no little to nothing on this subject if you think he "ran like the wind". He succeeded in N.Africa due to his Blitzkrieg tactics.

Then why did the Axis lose in North Africa?  All he did was hold the Allies off for a while.  In fact, Hitler withdrew Rommel because of the looming disaster.

Auchinleck (yes thank you) held Rommel off at first El Alamein, only to be relieved by Churchill and replaced by Montgomery. 

There's no such thing as a "war without hate".  Anger still seethes years later.  Besides, they were the Nazis - the same people who enslaved most of Europe and murdered tens of millions of people.  To place them as equals to the Allies is disrespectful of our veterans and those who made the ultimate sacrifice to end fascism.

Clearly you dont understand what a Nazi is. They were NOT nazis. Get your facts straight, only a few divisions in the whole axis army could be called Nazi's. Rommel lost N.Africa because Hitler refused to give him more men and infact stripped him of 2 divisions to send to Russia.

Rommel was by far the most superior general, most historians will agree on that. If he had been on the Allies side we would have won a hell of a lot faster and if Hitler had given him more support it would have made the Allies job a hell of a lot harder.

KillerKane0 wrote:

If you served the Nazi cause, you're a Nazi.  It doesn't matter if you actually held a party card. 

Rommel was only more famous than some of his Nazi counterparts, mainly because he had been placed in independent command in North Africa.  Wishing he was on the Allied side isn't good enough.  We had better commanders, like Patton, Middleton and John S. Wood.

Im just going to accept that you know little to nothing about WWII.

Vilham wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I don't agree with you.  Hitler wasn't a good military leader, he didn't know a shit about strategy.  He was just a wacko who wanted to rule Europe or even the World, and killed millions of persons only because of their race and origin.  I agree some of the methods used by ATG could have been a bit hard, but the guy was a genius when it comes to strategy.  He never lost a battle.  That's admirable.  And he never comitted Genocide.

I don't care how good they were at war. It's about what they do. I don't see much of a difference between genocide and forcing war apon the known world. Either way he killed thousands of people for not being Greek. Imperialistic conquerors get no praise from me.

Alexander the great was MACEDONIAN not GREEK. Two completely different nations.

Why even argue something as pointless as that? You watched the movie Alexander, good for you.

Darth Vader.





...but Genghis Khan and George Patton.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-03-01 09:21:44)

the german top general in ww1

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Why even argue something as pointless as that? You watched the movie Alexander, good for you.

Actually ive read 4 books on his life.. good for you to not know anything about him that you can even get him mixed up with a Greek whom he hated more than anything.

Macedonians are greeks, just like the Spartans and Athenians. Practically the same thing. Same language, same culture.

WRONG WRONG WRONG! You couldnt be more WRONG.

Macedonians were seen as barbarians as the Greeks, they had little culture or democracy like the Greeks, the Macedonians were miners and farmers, not poets and inventors.

Thats like comparing Europe to Africa in this day and age.