Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Worst Military Mind of All History
Topic Started: Nov 30 2012, 12:42 AM (2,977 Views)
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
If anyone wanted to lose it was probably Grattan, I know Hitler was militarily stupid, but c'mon Grattan, really? Just, really? Did he even think he had the slightest possibility to win? At least Hitler did.

Also, Santa Anna, "Napoleon of the West" was damn stupid.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

From what I can read on that link about Grattan he was just following orders to get a guy bacl, got stuck with a drunkard for an interpreter and got unlucky when a stupid solder got nervous and fired at the Indians. There is a difference between that and willingly ordering an attack when you are badly outnumbered.

At least Grattan wasn't 100% to blame. Hitler could have won WW2 easily depending on how the encryption went and if he'd have used his strategists' advice. To lose at 40:1 odds because someone had a happy trigger finger isn't as bad as employing strategists and not following their advice, then losing a war through your own control freakery :P
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
True, but you think when he saw 1,200 Native Americans he would have ordered that no one shoot on any circumstances. Not to mention it is commonly held belief that Bordeaux accurately translated afterwards.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hjk561
Member Avatar
He rules
Dantos4
Dec 1 2012, 10:02 PM
My list in no particular order:
Who's ever idea the Battle of the Somme was.
Napoleon in general. The only moron who failed to invade Russia harder than him in recent years would be Hitler himself.
Hitler for invading the USSR. Ideological differences aside, opening up another front is always a retarded move. So was Germany vs Stalingrad in general.
Hitler for ballsing up basically everything he could possibly balls up. Upto and including overrulling his best generals constantly.
USA invading Vietnam.
USSR invading Afghanistan after witnessing the USA fail in Vietnam. "It won't happen to us! hurr durr!"
Whatever retarded Roman thought pissing off the Germanic tribes was an excellent idea. Especially Teutoberg forst.
Chaimberlain / Churchill rejecting the Nazi alliance / ceasefire deals. Although accepting them didn't turn out well for the USSR either.
Hitler's whole "mobilizing the armour requires my personal approval" and "do not disturb me as I sleep" paradox.
Same with L.B.Johnson's similar orders in Vietnam.

My overall worst-military mind? Hitler. By a long, long country mile.

Don't get me wrong, as much as we demonise the guy for the things he did (the victors write history, remember) he was a fantastic orator, economist, a decent politician and had some interesting... things which were far, far ahead of their time. ( ICBM/rockets, the type XXI sub, blitzkrieg tanks, the Tiger/Jagdtiger, anti-smoking, animal rights policies, NV goggles, even combating corporate capitalism with fascism etc etc.)

But as a military leader? Lord Almighty, what a wet slipper. How someone manages to fail with people like von Manstein, Rommel, Guderian, von Kleist, Kretschemer, Topp etc on his side... it is just shocking.
I agree with all of the above, except for the Roman one. That was down to back stabbery more than bad leadership.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
F.C.D
Member Avatar

I perfectly agree with the coice of Hitler. A really good politician, almost a genius in some og the things he was going, but millitary? That man was completly lost.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RandomMan1
Member Avatar

Dantos4
Dec 1 2012, 10:02 PM
My list in no particular order:
Who's ever idea the Battle of the Somme was.
Hitler for invading the USSR. Ideological differences aside, opening up another front is always a retarded move. So was Germany vs Stalingrad in general.
Hitler for ballsing up basically everything he could possibly balls up. Upto and including overrulling his best generals constantly.
USA invading Vietnam.
USSR invading Afghanistan after witnessing the USA fail in Vietnam. "It won't happen to us! hurr durr!"
Hitler's whole "mobilizing the armour requires my personal approval" and "do not disturb me as I sleep" paradox.
Same with L.B.Johnson's similar orders in Vietnam.

My overall worst-military mind? Hitler. By a long, long country mile.

Don't get me wrong, as much as we demonise the guy for the things he did (the victors write history, remember) he was a fantastic orator, economist, a decent politician and had some interesting... things which were far, far ahead of their time. ( ICBM/rockets, the type XXI sub, blitzkrieg tanks, the Tiger/Jagdtiger, anti-smoking, animal rights policies, NV goggles, even combating corporate capitalism with fascism etc etc.)

But as a military leader? Lord Almighty, what a wet slipper. How someone manages to fail with people like von Manstein, Rommel, Guderian, von Kleist, Kretschemer, Topp etc on his side... it is just shocking.
I agree with a those, but:
Quote:
 
Napoleon in general. The only moron who failed to invade Russia harder than him in recent years would be Hitler himself.
Napoleon actually was winning in Russia, but when the Russian scorched their own land (including burning down Moscow), it forced him to turn around. However, no one could have seen that coming. Plus, Napoleon was actually a decent commander, he just got a little to cocky.
Quote:
 
Whatever retarded Roman thought pissing off the Germanic tribes was an excellent idea. Especially Teutoberg forst.

That "retarded Roman" was Julius Caesar, and he actually conquered them. Also, Teutoberg Forest (which happened years later under the reign of Augustus) was lost due to, as HJK put it, back stabbery.
Quote:
 
Chaimberlain / Churchill rejecting the Nazi alliance / ceasefire deals. Although accepting them didn't turn out well for the USSR either.
You've already presented my argument for me. Look what happened to the Russians.

The rest I tend to agree with (though you used Vietnam twice).
Edited by RandomMan1, Dec 2 2012, 02:57 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Napoleon actually was winning in Russia, but when the Russian scorched their own land (including burning down Moscow), it forced him to turn around. However, no one could have seen that coming. Plus, Napoleon was actually a decent commander, he just got a little to cocky.
Napoleon thought that if he captured Moscow then Russia would surrender. Huge gamble. Huge mistake.
Quote:
 
hat "retarded Roman" was Julius Caesar, and he actually conquered them. Also, Teutoberg Forest (which happened years later under the reign of Augustus) was lost due to, as HJK put it, back stabbery.
Quote:
 
except for the Roman one. That was down to back stabbery more than bad leadership.
I never asked who conquered them, I am fully aware of Roman history mate. I said who pissed them off. There is a huge difference. Germanicus, Publius Quinctilius Varus and Tiberius collectively pissed them off.

I'm sorry but saying the Teutoberg forest wasn't bad commanding when the retard had a German Prince to guide him to conquering Germania is like saying it wouldn't have been retarded for Churchill to rely on von Manstein or Rommel for advice. You don't rely on the enemy for advice on conquering his own lands. Big tactical mistake, no matter how trustworthy he may seem. EDIT:
Spoiler: click to toggle
Those reasons above in the spoiler are, by anyone's standards, bad judgement and bad leadership. And why was pissing them German tribes off such a bad thing? Well the Vandals and Suebi are a fantastic reason why... (They got their own back eventually by sacking Rome it's self). These people's crossing the Rhine helped pave the way for people like the Visgoth's to take the first charge. Pretty big deal.
Quote:
 
You've already presented my argument for me. Look what happened to the Russians.
Yet Britain wasn't totally ideologically different to Germany, not as much as the USSR was. One of his biggest reasons for invading the USSR was the lack of fuel due to the failings in N.Africa. Britain doesn't have a lot of natural fuel either... Auxillia commander or not, you don't trust your enemy with the life of your men.
Quote:
 
(though you used Vietnam twice
For two different and legitimate reasons? The overall underestimation of the Vietnamese ground forces abilities, including guerilla warfare, was a massive mistake. The other mistake was particular to L.B.Johnson and his restrictions on orders unless they were certified by him, causing a delaying effect when time was of the essence.
Quote:
 
True, but you think when he saw 1,200 Native Americans he would have ordered that no one shoot on any circumstances. Not to mention it is commonly held belief that Bordeaux accurately translated afterwards.
While he may or may not have given the order to hold fire. He certainly didn't tell that soldier to open fire either. Was he guilty of having low discipline in his troops? This may be evidence for this. But he can't be blamed for a decision he never made. He didn't tell them to open fire, but I do see your point.
Edited by Dantos4, Dec 2 2012, 11:41 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
I suppose, but if I were him I would have ordered that everyone empty their guns and absolutely don't fire. And even when the fighting started, he could have given the order to surrender hoping that it would make a difference.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Possibly yeah, but then what if they slaughtered them anyway? :P Then he'd be "that general who ordered everyone empty their guns before they were slaughtered". Personally, I would put it down to the discipline of his troops, which overall he is in charge of and responsible for. Overall, it is his fault, but it wasn't like he chose to pick a fight with them, although there are some accounts I've read that say he was "out for blood" before began the mission.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
Yeah, if it were me I would have taken a translator and 1 or 2 soldiers to avoid that sort of thing. No one with only 2 soldiers would be considered a war party.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.