Discussion in 'Literature' started by FighterJock, Jan 13, 2001.
Just wanted to post the 100th message.
He may be a racist son of a bitch, but I would suggest that the tactocs of Nathan Bedford Forrest might be well adapted to the war against the Vong, provided the Republic could get on top of them. "Keep up the skeer" and chase them into the ground, force them into retreat and not give them the chance to regroup and recover.
NOTE: I do not regard Forrest as a hero. I respect his military skills only, nothing more.
Um...wouldn't any one of them be easily taken out by a Dovin Basal?...or a small group of Vong?
Interesting thing about bedford forrest's tactics:
"His Battle of Brice's Cross Roads has been called the "perfect" battle, and his campaigns were studied closely, before World War II, by the German field marshal, Erwin Rommel."
That is virtually the only reason I mentioned him. His tactics were so good that they are still to armoured troops today.
That is where the NR has gone wrong in the battles of the NJO - on the occasions they have gained an advantage, they thrown it away by regrouping and licking their wounds, instead of chasing after the enemy and continuing to fight.
Okay, put aside the near universal hatred of the man's actions.
I nominate Adolf Hitler to go against the Vong. Look at him from a purely millitary and political perspective and he one of the men for the job. I mean, really, what he did, what he accomplished he did extremely well! Can you really dispute that.
Now I am not saying I condon what he did. I am merely stating that I respect him from a military standpoint, aswell as a political standpoint.
Another man I would put up for consideration is Alexander the Great. Conquered most of the known world in his time! That seems signifigant enough to warrent his being put on this list.
If any of these persons had been mentiond previously ... good! They deserve to be mentioned more than once!
Hitler was a megomaniacal dumkolph.
He could strategize his way out of a paperbag, and wouldn't listen to the advice of those better than him. He got progressivly worse as the war proceeded. So no he would be a terrible choice.
If anyone recalls how irrational Hitler had been at the end of the war (that epileptic), how he was living in a self-delusional world, how his personal whims and boundless ambitions interfered with his judgments, one will refrain from nominating the Fuhrer.
One example shall suffice.
During the Russian invasion, had Hitler treated the Ukranians or the Belarussians with more kindness rather than to enslave them, the Soviet edifice would have collapsed in ruins without costing the Fuhrer that much. He could have just exploited the internal dissension within the USSR. Instead, Hitler, who had profited by learning from the Communist revoluntionary method, was turned by his success and swayed to the approach of establishing his whatsoever jig-saw Aryan state. So the Soviets and the Ukranians were united by a common enemy, and Hitler was forced to fight a war on two fronts.
The lesson of history.
Hitler would be a good leader in the Republic - if you wanted the Vong to win. I can't think of another person who would personally take command of entire armies (not divisions or corps) and issue orders every sane man under him recognised as suicidal. One example is Stalingrad. Hitler ordered von Paulus (and the 6th Army) to hold Stalingrad to the last man and last bullet. von Paulus obeyed, and upon his promotion to Field Marshal, promptly surrendered, leaving the Eastern Front's southern flank wide open.
For the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler personally insisted that the battle go ahead, even though the massive numbers of men and vehicles were needed on the Eastern Front. He invaded Russia, issued orders that resulted in pissing off virtually all of the occupied territories in the east, and when the whole rotten mess collapsed in on itself, stripped the front which was most in need of reinforcements that might have slowed down the Russian advance. But then again, what else could one expect from a syphilitic corporal?
I consider all Australians who have gone to war to protect Australia as heroes.
Hilter did very well with what he had...He went to war years before he really planned to. Germanys military buildup was scheduled to finish around 1946. He took a small military force and routed two of the more powerful militaries of the world at the time, the French and the Brits.
But it wasn't because he was a particularly great commander, it had more to do with military errors of the Allies. They were living in the past, they were tied up with WWI and they didn't learn from the lessons the Germans showed when they swept through the low countries and when it came to France the Allies were easily forced back. He then stopped his armies from crushing the French and the BEF at Dunkirk and let the Brits evacuate over 30000 men, when they Brits thought saving 2000 men would be a great achievement.
Hilter then invaded Russia because he hated Communists and Commnism, they were like Jews to him, an inferior race. At first the people of the Ukraine and that area welcomed the Germans because they saw the Germans as their saviours from the COmmunists. But the Germans were just as bad, if not worse.
Hilter same close, so very close to defeating the most powerful army in the world at the time, the Russians. But by then he had made himself Supreme COmmander, a position he didn't have the skills for.
But Hilter also failed to crush England. Which they came close to again, if the German airforce had not changed to attacking London, if they kept up the attack on the RAF for a week more the RAF would have been destroyed, they would have Air superiority and Germany could have invaded...at the time the only real force the Allied had was the Royal Navy which basically controlled the sea.
Please, don't give me that garbage, Wes. Hitler was pathological liar. True, the war started years before it was planned to. Hitler lied to his navy commanders, saying that the war would come in 1942. The Kreigsmarine based their entire shipbuilding operations around that start date. U-Boats, aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers and destroyers were not completed due to this.
Guess what? Even with a woefully inadequate submarine fleet, Admiral Doenitz still came within a couple of months of starving Great Britian into submission.
There was no external pressure (or reason) for Hitler to go to war in 1939. He had a non-aggression treaty with Stalin, Britain and the rest of Europe were doing nothing against him except a bit of saber rattling over the annexation of Austria.
As for Russia, yeah, the early stages of Barbarossa were rather intelligent, but why stop the central thrust of your attack when you're standing at the gates of Moscow to attack Stalingrad and Leningrad? The later two cities were not vital objectives, certainly not vital to the defence of the Soviet Union - Moscow was. The only reason Hitler sent Army Group North to Leningrad, and Group South to Stalingrad, was that the northern city bore the name of the man who founded Communist Russia, and Target South bore the name of the leader at the time.
The seas? Well, I've stated my point about the wolfpacks. The Allied naval presence in the Atlantic didn't gather steam until after America joined the war. By December 1941, Britain was already on her knees with the combination of the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic.
Hitler had declared himself Supreme Commander way back in 1933 when he conned Paul von Hindenburg to appoint him president of the republic. I think you may have confused that for the fact that during the Eastern Front campaign, Hitler kept firing senior generals who said they couldn't do the job - he got the delusion that he could be a successful commander from one minor skirmish in which the Wehrmacht got lucky due to some junior battlefield commanders.
The RAN was also fairly weak as a military force - the only notable ships of the line were outdated and obsolete cruisers and battleships and the new-fangled aircraft carriers. Granted, the Bismarck got lucky when one of her shells went down the funnel of the HMS Hood, but tonne for tonne, German naval vessels and commanders were better than the British Fleet, even with all of their handicaps. The sinking of the Bismarck scared Hitler into keeping the Tirpitz locked up in port. With a proper naval taskforce assigned to her, she could have laid complete and total waste to many a cross ocean convoy.
I'll finish there, since I figure I've made enough of a point - that being that Hitler was not, and could never be a successful leader.
Hannibal Barca, of Iberia and Carthage, commander of the Spanish Armies, eternal archfoe of Rome, honor in battle and home, tactical genius, born commander and born soldier.
Though defeated by Scipio Africanus, we must look at the soldiers on both sides. Hannibal's had just returned from years of fighting in Rome and though they were arguably one of the greatest groupings of soldiers, they were a wee bit tired. Scipio drew from shamed legions, but rested ones as well as the (double-crossing) Nubians.
Given equally rested armies, Hannibal would've won the Battle of Zama.
The Vong's tactics actually resemble the Carthaginian's, sweeping around the capital, sowing destruction and unrest in the 'countryside'.