Be a Supporter!

Whos was the greatest Leader

  • 1,502 Views
  • 55 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
AwesomeX
AwesomeX
  • Member since: Feb. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 23rd, 2009 @ 03:54 PM Reply

I think Hitler was the best or one of the best leaders ever. He was a good enough strategist to take over much of Europe, as well, he also got enough people to think his way to end up exterminating almost an entire race. He was a great leader, even if he led people to do something unethical.


You should PM me! My Userpage has Boobs on it
Proletarii vsekh stran, soyedinyaytes'!)

BBS Signature
Tomsan
Tomsan
  • Member since: Nov. 7, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Movie Buff
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 23rd, 2009 @ 04:04 PM Reply

USSR in axis of evil.. strange axis


God invented evolution 'cause he couldn't do it all by himself! Awesome Tees!

BBS Signature
OddlyPoetic
OddlyPoetic
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 23rd, 2009 @ 04:06 PM Reply

At 8/23/09 03:54 PM, AwesomeX wrote: I think Hitler was the best or one of the best leaders ever. He was a good enough strategist to take over much of Europe, as well, he also got enough people to think his way to end up exterminating almost an entire race. He was a great leader, even if he led people to do something unethical.

Yeah too bad he wasn't good enough to keep his little empire from being ripped to shreds.


Render Unto Caesar

BBS Signature
AwesomeX
AwesomeX
  • Member since: Feb. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 23rd, 2009 @ 06:21 PM Reply

I would imagine keeping an empire that the rest of the world has united against is a fair bit difficult.


You should PM me! My Userpage has Boobs on it
Proletarii vsekh stran, soyedinyaytes'!)

BBS Signature
TDwizBang
TDwizBang
  • Member since: Jul. 4, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 23rd, 2009 @ 06:22 PM Reply

non agression pact with nazi germany????? ok let me get this straight... nazi germany pushed all the way into russia too stalingrad... than russia pushed all the way into germany and stopped nazi germany by taking the capital of berlin right before the americans (reason why the berlin wall was built and major cause of the cold war) how the hell can you say there was a non aggression pact when they were fighting each other the whole time?... hell russia pushed for the european invasion for months before his allies (the allied forces) took normandy which in turn made it so stalingrad could keep its oil fields and push germany back... if russia was an axis power why did they use american planes to fight with... why did they use american icebreakers to keep there ports open? dont say people didnt pay attention in history class when it looks like you didnt even go...

by the way i would say the best leader was winston churchill... because he kept his country afloat with his diplomacy and tact while on the verge of occupation AND was a major player in keeping the allied forces together and unified... and he didnt put up too much of a fuss when his country tossed him out like old news after the war was over... keep in mind i say all this being an american who hasnt really studied english politics after ww2 only W.C.'s like, so please correct me if i am wrong

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 23rd, 2009 @ 07:28 PM Reply

At 8/23/09 04:06 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote:
At 8/23/09 03:54 PM, AwesomeX wrote: I think Hitler was the best or one of the best leaders ever. He was a good enough strategist to take over much of Europe, as well, he also got enough people to think his way to end up exterminating almost an entire race. He was a great leader, even if he led people to do something unethical.
Yeah too bad he wasn't good enough to keep his little empire from being ripped to shreds.

The only one ever able to do such a thing was Alexander the great and the Roman Empire, but back during those times there were far less people around so genocide was much more easier to succeed in attempting.

Napoleon did the same as Hitler, same thing happened, Russia and the united remnants of the European countries+Britain crushed him and forced him into exile. The fact that in the modern era Genocide is harder then ever to carry out.

Now please tell me, how would you have won the goddamn war in Hitler's position? I mean I doubt you would have even brought Germany out of the crap of the Treaty Of Versailles.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
OddlyPoetic
OddlyPoetic
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 23rd, 2009 @ 07:33 PM Reply

At 8/23/09 07:28 PM, Warforger wrote:
At 8/23/09 04:06 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote:
At 8/23/09 03:54 PM, AwesomeX wrote: I think Hitler was the best or one of the best leaders ever. He was a good enough strategist to take over much of Europe, as well, he also got enough people to think his way to end up exterminating almost an entire race. He was a great leader, even if he led people to do something unethical.
Yeah too bad he wasn't good enough to keep his little empire from being ripped to shreds.
The only one ever able to do such a thing was Alexander the great and the Roman Empire, but back during those times there were far less people around so genocide was much more easier to succeed in attempting.

I'd admire someone who never uses genocide in their reign.


Napoleon did the same as Hitler, same thing happened, Russia and the united remnants of the European countries+Britain crushed him and forced him into exile. The fact that in the modern era Genocide is harder then ever to carry out.

Again, i don't admire leaders who start wars without total necessity. I never admire ones that commit genocide.

Now please tell me, how would you have won the goddamn war in Hitler's position? I mean I doubt you would have even brought Germany out of the crap of the Treaty Of Versailles.

Never invading the USSR would have been a start? Why so much doubt to my ability; what the fuck makes you think you'd do better? Neither of us would; because we're fucking teenagers that like to dick around on NG. That's why.


Render Unto Caesar

BBS Signature
Halberd
Halberd
  • Member since: Aug. 22, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Movie Buff
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 23rd, 2009 @ 08:31 PM Reply

lolol barack obama coz my mum sed he'd save the ecnunomy and the wrorld!

Seriously though, if anyone I really admire Tito as a leader.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NguTypiXqqY
ILLEGAL MARIJUANA RELATED ACTIVITIES

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 23rd, 2009 @ 10:55 PM Reply

At 8/23/09 07:33 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote:
At 8/23/09 07:28 PM, Warforger wrote:
At 8/23/09 04:06 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote:
At 8/23/09 03:54 PM, AwesomeX wrote: I think Hitler was the best or one of the best leaders ever. He was a good enough strategist to take over much of Europe, as well, he also got enough people to think his way to end up exterminating almost an entire race. He was a great leader, even if he led people to do something unethical.
Yeah too bad he wasn't good enough to keep his little empire from being ripped to shreds.
The only one ever able to do such a thing was Alexander the great and the Roman Empire, but back during those times there were far less people around so genocide was much more easier to succeed in attempting.
I'd admire someone who never uses genocide in their reign.

Napoleon did the same as Hitler, same thing happened, Russia and the united remnants of the European countries+Britain crushed him and forced him into exile. The fact that in the modern era Genocide is harder then ever to carry out.
Again, i don't admire leaders who start wars without total necessity. I never admire ones that commit genocide.
Now please tell me, how would you have won the goddamn war in Hitler's position? I mean I doubt you would have even brought Germany out of the crap of the Treaty Of Versailles.
Never invading the USSR would have been a start? Why so much doubt to my ability; what the fuck makes you think you'd do better? Neither of us would; because we're fucking teenagers that like to dick around on NG. That's why.

*sigh* he honestly thought that he could win against Russia, after all they weren't able to crush Finland! That and he got close to winning, in fact he could have won if his plans weren't so confusing. He had every right to feel he could take it down easily, especially at the time Germany had the best tacticians. What Hitler didn't expect was Stalin to learn from his mistakes, which effectively won the war for him. Also, during WWI, Russia had the most people, but the Germans successfully held them back with there Austrian allies, so Hitler thought if that worked before and right now there not doing very well against Finland then he thought the same would happen here.

As for Genocide, thats personal agenda, I mean the Roman Empire had in its history committed genocide before and successfully as well. Napoleon also did massacres, he also got close to then capital of the Russian Empire St. Petersburg (which would later be renamed Leningrad

As for war without necessity, keep in mind, starting wars just to gain territory was normal for countries like Germany and Japan at the time, as they were still Imperialistic, so we cannot just judge them from a viewpoint from modern era.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Pontificate
Pontificate
  • Member since: Feb. 21, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 24th, 2009 @ 07:56 AM Reply

At 8/23/09 06:22 PM, TDwizBang wrote: non agression pact with nazi germany?????

F, must try harder.

Oh and please, as unlikely as it is for the opportunity to arise, try not to breed.


Disclaimer: any and all opinions contained herewith are to be immediately disregarded if you are not of the 'right sort'. Failure to comply will result in immediate snubbing.

White-hole
White-hole
  • Member since: Mar. 2, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 24th, 2009 @ 08:17 AM Reply

At 8/23/09 10:55 PM, Warforger wrote:
*sigh* he honestly thought that he could win against Russia,

Meaningless, He got into a pointless and intensely destructive war which, at the end of the day, he lost, Whatever he thought. Invading Russia was suicide, and even if the clouds opened and god himself helped in his conquest the losses would have been far to great to make it worthwhile. In 1939 the U.S.S.R was able to call upon:
-96 infantry divisions (compared to Germany's 86)
-4 tank corps (Germany 6 divisions, A corps is much larger than a division)
-1440 fighters (Germany 1174)
-1500 bombers (Germany 1516)

Add to this the fact that soviet industry could replace losses and increase production to a scale that German industry could not comprehend, they had manpower reserves that meant they were able to to shrug off the near 6 million casualties of 1941 alone without much trouble (something that the Germans could only dream of), all this should have made it clear to Hitler in 1941 that he was going to get himself into an unwinnable war if his plans didn't go exactly as he hoped, and anyone who knows anything about military history will tell you that plans never go exactly as hoped.

after all they weren't able to crush Finland!

The soviets had trouble in their war against Finland (which they won BTW) for the same reason that America lost in Vietnam, The same why Britain had trouble in South Africa, It was an unpopular war that the Soldiers on the ground had little idea why they were fighting. That is not a good indicator of a country's strength. Do you think Russia should have attacked America after Vietnam? What about Germany attacking Britain after the Boer war?

That and he got close to winning, in fact he could have won if his plans weren't so confusing.

Last time i checked confusing plans is a strong sign of a bad leader.

He had every right to feel he could take it down easily, especially at the time Germany had the best tacticians.

No he didn't, anyone will tell you if you unlawfully invade a country with a mind to totally destroy it and its people those people will resist to the last man, which is exactly what the soviets did.

What Hitler didn't expect was Stalin to learn from his mistakes, which effectively won the war for him. Also, during WWI, Russia had the most people, but the Germans successfully held them back with there Austrian allies, so Hitler thought if that worked before and right now there not doing very well against Finland then he thought the same would happen here.

WW1 was a totally different kettle of fish altogether, Russia invaded Germany and Austria with little popular support or idea why it was doing it, While in world war two the Russian people were fighting for their very survival and emboldened with a steely thirst for vengeance to bring the fight to Germany, Hitler should have recognized that from the start.


As for Genocide, thats personal agenda, I mean the Roman Empire had in its history committed genocide before and successfully as well. Napoleon also did massacres, he also got close to then capital of the Russian Empire St. Petersburg (which would later be renamed Leningrad

No its not personal if your killing millions of people, I would quite like to see you repeat the above statement at a Holocaust survivors and hunting rifle enthusiasts meeting (BYOBAG=bring your own beer and guns).

As for war without necessity, keep in mind, starting wars just to gain territory was normal for countries like Germany and Japan at the time, as they were still Imperialistic, so we cannot just judge them from a viewpoint from modern era.

Umm, yes we can because by the 1930s, most countrys had agreed that killing millions to create an oppresive empire was, ya know, Bad.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 24th, 2009 @ 10:39 AM Reply

No, your ignoring the fact that Stalin had purged some of his best officers prior to the war, and so there were inexperianced officers taking there place, so even if they have better production and a bigger army, that doesn't necessarily mean they have good leadership, not to mention the German army was a highly elite force at the time as they had to be to deal with multiple enemies. Your also ignoring the Romanian army, the Russians who joined the Germans, Finland, and Italy, all those helped make up the operation. Because most people keep thinking it was just Germany, thats why there numbers are usually so low, like I heard people talking about the holocaust and how the numbers were exggaretted, they mentioned there were only a couple hundred thousand Jews in Germany so how could he have killed 6 million? This is largely ignoring the fact that Germany wasn't the only place with Jews, and the fact that many Jews fled when Hitler came to power.

You also have to remember the fact that Stalin had not expected a invasion as early as 1942, in fact he ordered his troops to not fire unless commanded so Hitler doesn't have a reason to declare war on them, this was bad because this led the Germans to severe communication lines and surround the Russian soldiers and capture them, which resulted in huge losses for the Russians at the beginning, your also ignoring the element of surprise as well.

Confusing plans? He didn't make the plans, he just wasn't specific enough about what he wanted to conquer, so there were just lines going all across Russia, this isn't unique as many people today make the mistake of not being specific enough, its called a flaw, everyone has them.

Now please, no other ruler during the 20th century never got close to Hitler's achievements, pulling Germany out of the shithole of the Treaty Of Versailles and conquering most of Europe, I'd love to see Germany do that today.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
White-hole
White-hole
  • Member since: Mar. 2, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 24th, 2009 @ 04:48 PM Reply

At 8/24/09 10:39 AM, Warforger wrote: No, your ignoring the fact that Stalin had purged some of his best officers prior to the war, and so there were inexperianced officers taking there place, so even if they have better production and a bigger army, that doesn't necessarily mean they have good leadership,

Yes, but the Russian people and soldiers were hardly going to give up and bow down to the German invasion ever, regardless of leadership, particularly as the Germans raped and pillaged their way through their homeland. But Stalin, at the end of the day, had attributes that Hitler simply did not, he learned from his mistakes, he took his generals advice, he saw the value of retreat and he exhorted his people to fight on, thus Hitler Was not the best leader of the twentieth century if he cannot even compare to Stalin.

not to mention the German army was a highly elite force at the time as they had to be to deal with multiple enemies.

Doesn't the mere fact that they had to deal with multiple enemy's convey to you at least that bringing another enemy into the mix was a bad idea?

Your also ignoring the Romanian army, the Russians who joined the Germans, Finland, and Italy,

all those helped make up the operation. Because most people keep thinking it was just Germany, thats why there numbers are usually so low

Sorry but those countries were totally ineffectual or, in the case of the finns, were pursuing their own interests and had no reason in attempting to conquer Russia when they had achieved them. As for Italy, Romania and Hungary they were weak and feeble, their soldiers demoralized and unwilling to fight in a place they had no connection, their industries not nearly large enough to make a difference, and the amount of men they committed on the front at the start of the invasion was at all enough to cover the gaps, even the Germans knew they could not rely on them and, at the end of the day, was mostly fighting the eastern war on its own.

like I heard people talking about the holocaust and how the numbers were exggaretted, they mentioned there were only a couple hundred thousand Jews in Germany so how could he have killed 6 million? This is largely ignoring the fact that Germany wasn't the only place with Jews, and the fact that many Jews fled when Hitler came to power.

Well, at least you recognize that the holocaust happened, i'm glad to see we made some progress.
Now, to work on this whole "Hitler was a good leader" malarkey.

You also have to remember the fact that Stalin had not expected a invasion as early as 1942 (1941), in fact he ordered his troops to not fire unless commanded so Hitler doesn't have a reason to declare war on them, this was bad because this led the Germans to severe communication lines and surround the Russian soldiers and capture them, which resulted in huge losses for the Russians at the beginning,

While true it should be kept in mind that even Hitler did not know that the first year would develop the way it would, he had no idea of what Stalin was doing and Stalin did not want to believe what Hitler was doing. But as I said above Stalin had something huge that Hitler lacked, the ability to learn from his mistakes and work with others as he needed. As for the massive Russian losses of the first,as I said in the last post, though tragic, they were quickly made good upon by the soviet Unions vast manpower reserves.

your also ignoring the element of surprise as well.

Pretty much disappears when you have thousands of miles of land to cross and conquer to win the war.

Confusing plans? He didn't make the plans, he just wasn't specific enough about what he wanted to conquer

Yes, thats the definition of "confusing plans" good job +1 credit (BTW he always overlooked the plans as they were being made and they were very strongly influence by his decisions, so you cant pass the book on him by saying someone else did it).

so there were just lines going all across Russia, this isn't unique as many people today make the mistake of not being specific enough, its called a flaw, everyone has them.

What?! How can write such a gaping hole in his character as a simple flaw? When dealing with events of this magnitude he simply could not afford to make such a gigantic cock-up, and cock-up he did. His constant shuffling of forces along the whole front, and erratic changes of the focus of the assaults made the German forces confused about their aims. A good commander cannot afford to let that happen, thus Hitler was not a good commander.

Now please, no other ruler during the 20th century never got close to Hitler's achievements, pulling Germany out of the shithole of the Treaty Of Versailles and conquering most of Europe, I'd love to see Germany do that today.

LOL, that worked clearly. Generally a good leader is one who is considered to NOT allow his country to fall into near total ruin. But thats a little off topic, a good leader is one who does whats best for his country am I right? So explain to me What real need Germany had for an invasion of Russia.

Conspiracy3
Conspiracy3
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 24th, 2009 @ 05:26 PM Reply

I would say Vladimir Lenin. He freed the Russians from Tsarist oppression and created a free, socialist nation.

At 8/23/09 01:16 PM, Warforger wrote: Hammurabi I guess, he did after all invent the very concept of law and order in general.

1. The hammurabi code just wrote down what was already in tradition for hundreds of years

2. Have you ever READ the hammurabi code? According to that code if you aren't sure whether someone is guilty or innocent you should throw them into a river and if they survive they are innocent; if they die they are guilty.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 24th, 2009 @ 06:27 PM Reply

At 8/24/09 04:48 PM, White-hole wrote:
At 8/24/09 10:39 AM, Warforger wrote: No, your ignoring the fact that Stalin had purged some of his best officers prior to the war, and so there were inexperianced officers taking there place, so even if they have better production and a bigger army, that doesn't necessarily mean they have good leadership,
Yes, but the Russian people and soldiers were hardly going to give up and bow down to the German invasion ever, regardless of leadership, particularly as the Germans raped and pillaged their way through their homeland. But Stalin, at the end of the day, had attributes that Hitler simply did not, he learned from his mistakes, he took his generals advice, he saw the value of retreat and he exhorted his people to fight on, thus Hitler Was not the best leader of the twentieth century if he cannot even compare to Stalin.

He did, Stalin took the 2nd most amount of casualties in the entire war, thats almost as bad as losing the war in general. Yah he learned from his mistakes, in the process losing ALOT of men. Hitler CAN compare with Stalin, Stalin couldn't conquer Finland, while Hitler could conquer most of Europe.


not to mention the German army was a highly elite force at the time as they had to be to deal with multiple enemies.
Doesn't the mere fact that they had to deal with multiple enemy's convey to you at least that bringing another enemy into the mix was a bad idea?

*facepalm* That point has already been shot down.


Your also ignoring the Romanian army, the Russians who joined the Germans, Finland, and Italy,
all those helped make up the operation. Because most people keep thinking it was just Germany, thats why there numbers are usually so low

Sorry but those countries were totally ineffectual or, in the case of the finns, were pursuing their own interests and had no reason in attempting to conquer Russia when they had achieved them. As for Italy, Romania and Hungary they were weak and feeble, their soldiers demoralized and unwilling to fight in a place they had no connection, their industries not nearly large enough to make a difference, and the amount of men they committed on the front at the start of the invasion was at all enough to cover the gaps, even the Germans knew they could not rely on them and, at the end of the day, was mostly fighting the eastern war on its own.

No they were. About half the armies invading Russia IIRC were Romanian, or at least a good portion. Please go do your research before sounding like a idiot.


like I heard people talking about the holocaust and how the numbers were exggaretted, they mentioned there were only a couple hundred thousand Jews in Germany so how could he have killed 6 million? This is largely ignoring the fact that Germany wasn't the only place with Jews, and the fact that many Jews fled when Hitler came to power.
Well, at least you recognize that the holocaust happened, i'm glad to see we made some progress.
Now, to work on this whole "Hitler was a good leader" malarkey.

wtf? Wow go kill yourself. Really. Just do it.


You also have to remember the fact that Stalin had not expected a invasion as early as 1942 (1941), in fact he ordered his troops to not fire unless commanded so Hitler doesn't have a reason to declare war on them, this was bad because this led the Germans to severe communication lines and surround the Russian soldiers and capture them, which resulted in huge losses for the Russians at the beginning,
While true it should be kept in mind that even Hitler did not know that the first year would develop the way it would, he had no idea of what Stalin was doing and Stalin did not want to believe what Hitler was doing. But as I said above Stalin had something huge that Hitler lacked, the ability to learn from his mistakes and work with others as he needed. As for the massive Russian losses of the first,as I said in the last post, though tragic, they were quickly made good upon by the soviet Unions vast manpower reserves.

You mean like conscripting the people they liberate?


your also ignoring the element of surprise as well.
Pretty much disappears when you have thousands of miles of land to cross and conquer to win the war.

Not when you severed communication lines.

Confusing plans? He didn't make the plans, he just wasn't specific enough about what he wanted to conquer
Yes, thats the definition of "confusing plans" good job +1 credit (BTW he always overlooked the plans as they were being made and they were very strongly influence by his decisions, so you cant pass the book on him by saying someone else did it).

so there were just lines going all across Russia, this isn't unique as many people today make the mistake of not being specific enough, its called a flaw, everyone has them.
What?! How can write such a gaping hole in his character as a simple flaw? When dealing with events of this magnitude he simply could not afford to make such a gigantic cock-up, and cock-up he did. His constant shuffling of forces along the whole front, and erratic changes of the focus of the assaults made the German forces confused about their aims. A good commander cannot afford to let that happen, thus Hitler was not a good commander.

-_- You mean like the American forces did? Yah I thought they won.


Now please, no other ruler during the 20th century never got close to Hitler's achievements, pulling Germany out of the shithole of the Treaty Of Versailles and conquering most of Europe, I'd love to see Germany do that today.
LOL, that worked clearly. Generally a good leader is one who is considered to NOT allow his country to fall into near total ruin. But thats a little off topic, a good leader is one who does whats best for his country am I right? So explain to me What real need Germany had for an invasion of Russia.

To gain more territory and make themselves more proud of there country, not to mention to exploit the lands resources just like everyone had been doing at the time (America, Britain, France, Spain, Japan, Italy and Russia all did this so its not exclusive). If you wanna see this multiplied 10x worse go see the wars before WWI.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 24th, 2009 @ 06:28 PM Reply

At 8/21/09 03:15 PM, CrabPope wrote: How are soldiers leaders? ...

Anyway I'd go with Alexander the Great, ...

Wait...I didn't think soldiers could be leaders? Alexander the Great was a General which at that time actually meant leading troops into battle.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 42
Movie Buff
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 24th, 2009 @ 06:32 PM Reply

At 8/23/09 04:06 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Yeah too bad he wasn't good enough to keep his little empire from being ripped to shreds.

You could say that about pretty much any empire ever, but yeah, his was done in a pretty short time I think.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

OddlyPoetic
OddlyPoetic
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 24th, 2009 @ 10:52 PM Reply

At 8/24/09 06:43 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: General George S. Patton, he led the charge into germany and eliminated the nazis.

Not saying he didn't help; but he in no way eliminated the Nazi's alone as you imply.


Render Unto Caesar

BBS Signature
XxXTHENIGHTWOLFXxX
XxXTHENIGHTWOLFXxX
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 25th, 2009 @ 01:48 AM Reply

The best leader would need to be Dr.Martin luther king

for is exuberant and insperasional way to lead thousand, no millions of people with words and thought ... with no violence


How would you like a big fat cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP :D

BBS Signature
White-hole
White-hole
  • Member since: Mar. 2, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 25th, 2009 @ 01:31 PM Reply

At 8/24/09 06:27 PM, Warforger wrote:

He did, Stalin took the 2nd most amount of casualties in the entire war, thats almost as bad as losing the war in general.

Almost, but then who did lose the war in general? Thats right Hitler.

Yah he learned from his mistakes, in the process losing ALOT of men. Hitler CAN compare with Stalin, Stalin couldn't conquer Finland, while Hitler could conquer most of Europe.

What? Sorry but by 1945 there were a million soviet troops in Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, checkoslovakia, Austria and, of course, a nice big chunk of Germany. And guess what? They weren't leaving, oh no, in fact they'd still be there for another 45 years. they might even have taken over France, Italy, the low countries and the rest of Germany if it weren't for the western allies. So, in fact Stalin did take over a vast swath of Europe, and could have taken over a huge chunk more if things turned out differently. But more importantly, that empire lasted, not for half a decade, but for half a century. So I think that, yes, at the end of the day Stalin was more successful than Hitler.

*facepalm* That point has already been shot down.

Care to explain?


No they were. About half the armies invading Russia IIRC were Romanian, or at least a good portion. Please go do your research before sounding like a idiot.

First of all, the only army group where the foreign troops were deployed in the eastern front was army group south, Both army group north and army group centre were almost totally devoid of non-German troops. Second the total number of foreign troops was waaaay less than half, according to my good friend, H.P Wilmott the amount of foreigners involved in the initial invasion was 500,000 compared to 3.2 million German troops, so please don't pull out dumb figures out of your ass like that, makes you look bad. Third, the amount of foreigners involved in Russia increasingly fell as they were reluctant to commit to an increasingly deadly war from which they had nothing to gain, or just fell out of the war altogether(often allying themselves with the allies in fact). Fourth, as i thought i had already made clear to you, but obviously not, they were usually of very low quality compared to the Germans so their battle effectiveness was massively reduced. K?

wtf? Wow go kill yourself. Really. Just do it.

Lol, running out of ammo I see, Don't worry this'll be short and (relatively) painless.

You mean like conscripting the people they liberate?

Meaningless, Whether or not they conscripted non-Russians means nothing when the vast majority of those in their army were native Russians ready and willing to destroy the Nazis.

Not when you severed communication lines.

WTF? You do realize that the Germans, in fact, lost the war, and DIDN'T conquer Russia do you not?

-_- You mean like the American forces did? Yah I thought they won.

Completely out of context but I'll give it a shot. The Americans had a very clear and obvious objective, Drive the Nazis from their occupied territory in northern Europe and invade the country if necessary through the low countries to try to reach Berlin and end the war. On the other hand, in Russia the Germans were Flitting between Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and whatever other place seemed to strike Hitlers fancy on a good day, Resulting in confused and indecisive attacks and an inability to fully exploit breakthroughs. And, at the end of the day, the Americans and Russians could absorb mistakes that the Germans simply could not, their war machine couldn't cope with as many screw up ups as their enemy's. Thus comparing it to the Americans is stupid, they had the resources to focus on three separate fronts all at once and with the maximum of effort, something of which the German leaders could only dream.

To gain more territory and make themselves more proud of there country, not to mention to exploit the lands resources just like everyone had been doing at the time (America, Britain, France, Spain, Japan, Italy and Russia all did this so its not exclusive). If you wanna see this multiplied 10x worse go see the wars before WWI.

Thus it was an unnecessary war which Germany didn't need and gained nothing and lost everything. Hitler lead his country to ruin for a stupid reason (why on earth would Germany NEED lebensraum?, place seems fairly okay without it) and hence he cannot be considered a great leader for taking such an outrageous gamble.

redzone
redzone
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 25th, 2009 @ 02:31 PM Reply

Maybe alexandre the great

AwesomeX
AwesomeX
  • Member since: Feb. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 27th, 2009 @ 12:01 AM Reply

In terms of conquest and control, Genghis, Alexander, and Hitler did a good job.


You should PM me! My Userpage has Boobs on it
Proletarii vsekh stran, soyedinyaytes'!)

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 27th, 2009 @ 01:29 AM Reply

At 8/25/09 01:31 PM, White-hole wrote:
At 8/24/09 06:27 PM, Warforger wrote:
Almost, but then who did lose the war in general? Thats right Hitler.


What? Sorry but by 1945 there were a million soviet troops in Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, checkoslovakia, Austria and, of course, a nice big chunk of Germany. And guess what? They weren't leaving, oh no, in fact they'd still be there for another 45 years. they might even have taken over France, Italy, the low countries and the rest of Germany if it weren't for the western allies. So, in fact Stalin did take over a vast swath of Europe, and could have taken over a huge chunk more if things turned out differently. But more importantly, that empire lasted, not for half a decade, but for half a century. So I think that, yes, at the end of the day Stalin was more successful than Hitler.


No they were. About half the armies invading Russia IIRC were Romanian, or at least a good portion. Please go do your research before sounding like a idiot.
First of all, the only army group where the foreign troops were deployed in the eastern front was army group south, Both army group north and army group centre were almost totally devoid of non-German troops. Second the total number of foreign troops was waaaay less than half, according to my good friend, H.P Wilmott the amount of foreigners involved in the initial invasion was 500,000 compared to 3.2 million German troops, so please don't pull out dumb figures out of your ass like that, makes you look bad. Third, the amount of foreigners involved in Russia increasingly fell as they were reluctant to commit to an increasingly deadly war from which they had nothing to gain, or just fell out of the war altogether(often allying themselves with the allies in fact). Fourth, as i thought i had already made clear to you, but obviously not, they were usually of very low quality compared to the Germans so their battle effectiveness was massively reduced. K?

wtf? Wow go kill yourself. Really. Just do it.
Lol, running out of ammo I see, Don't worry this'll be short and (relatively) painless.
You mean like conscripting the people they liberate?
Meaningless, Whether or not they conscripted non-Russians means nothing when the vast majority of those in their army were native Russians ready and willing to destroy the Nazis.

Not when you severed communication lines.
WTF? You do realize that the Germans, in fact, lost the war, and DIDN'T conquer Russia do you not?

-_- You mean like the American forces did? Yah I thought they won.
Completely out of context but I'll give it a shot. The Americans had a very clear and obvious objective, Drive the Nazis from their occupied territory in northern Europe and invade the country if necessary through the low countries to try to reach Berlin and end the war. On the other hand, in Russia the Germans were Flitting between Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and whatever other place seemed to strike Hitlers fancy on a good day, Resulting in confused and indecisive attacks and an inability to fully exploit breakthroughs. And, at the end of the day, the Americans and Russians could absorb mistakes that the Germans simply could not, their war machine couldn't cope with as many screw up ups as their enemy's. Thus comparing it to the Americans is stupid, they had the resources to focus on three separate fronts all at once and with the maximum of effort, something of which the German leaders could only dream.

Thus it was an unnecessary war which Germany didn't need and gained nothing and lost everything. Hitler lead his country to ruin for a stupid reason (why on earth would Germany NEED lebensraum?, place seems fairly okay without it) and hence he cannot be considered a great leader for taking such an outrageous gamble.

Ok let's start for the above statement, its not an outrageous gamble, you obviously haven't read the much history especially the era just previously before WWII and WWI. IF you did, you'd realize you can;t use your way of life to apply to them, since they have a completely different context of whats right and whats wrong, I mean Britain, America, France and Spain did stuff today we'd demonize them for, but back in the day it was fine to do that. I mean they started wars because they wanted a particular territory and look at South America and the Spanish. Really. Back in those days it wasn't anything out of the ordinary to start wars just for the sole purpose of territory, this kind of attitude wouldn't die off for a LOOOOOOONG time, up until Nukes were introduced and everyone started siding with the US/USSR. So yah in today's world that would be outrageous, but back in those days it was perfectly reasonable to do that, even Churchill was like that, so were the French forces defending the territories.

As for being reluctant to join that war, Romanians probably did support the war, as after all they were rebuilding the Roman Empire :O Really like I said GO READ YOUR HISTORY If they didn't support it they would have just not been involved in the Eastern Front at all, just look at the Bulgarians.

As for American Forces, Americans were spreading there forces around, just like Hitler did, thats why you got stuff like Market Garden even though in trying to get to Berlin that would be completely useless. Montgomery tried to tell the US generals to unite there forces to attack one spearhead into Berlin, but Eisenhower laughed at it, thats why the war wasn't over in 1944, the Americans were having a tough time cracking the German's defense, and the victories in Market Garden merely bolstered the Germans morale.

As for conscription, that in fact meant the Russia was in fact running out of men, and severing communication lines delayed the message that Hitler was invading, so they were pretty deep in when they found out.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Phantom-pen
Phantom-pen
  • Member since: Sep. 22, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
jeffamphetamines
jeffamphetamines
  • Member since: Nov. 9, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 27th, 2009 @ 02:47 AM Reply

Hitler

JackOfShadows
JackOfShadows
  • Member since: May. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 41
Gamer
Response to Whos was the greatest Leader Aug. 29th, 2009 @ 11:17 AM Reply

At 8/24/09 05:26 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I would say Vladimir Lenin. He freed the Russians from Tsarist oppression and created a free, socialist nation.

Lenin was planning to make himself the new Tsar all along. And this free socialist nation was a highly opressive dictatorship. The people lived in fear for decades.

I really see no way to pick out a single leader as the best in history. There were far too many great men, each with his faults, to select the very best. And if you widen the defenition of "leader" to non political figures, you'd get lost in the sea of human history.


If words were wisdom, I'd be talking even more.