... Hitler... An absolutely corrupted man, but he lead a nation to a war... Hitler is one of the greats, alongside Napoleon.
Aye, it seems Russia is the "Achilles Heel" of European military leaders. First, Napoleon's grand army, then Hitler's nazi force.
hannibalHannibal knew how to gain a Victory but not how to use it.
for getting his army to Rome
and causing alot of damage
also becaus he took a dangerous trip to the Alpes
to reach Rome
hannibalHannibal knew how to gain a Victory but not how to use it.
for getting his army to Rome
and causing alot of damage
also becaus he took a dangerous trip to the Alpes
to reach Rome
-A quote from one of his brothers in think
"If tis man would be still alive, I wouldn't stand here."
William of Orange-
Because without him the Netherlands will still been an Spanish Habsburg.
William of Orange-
Because without him the Netherlands will still been an Spanish Habsburg.
I highly doubt that.
William of Orange-
Because without him the Netherlands will still been an Spanish Habsburg.
I highly doubt that.
He's speaking of the man that lead the Dutch revolt, not the King or Prince in 1815.
On a side note, the Dutch revolt was the funniest and eagerless-est revolt EVER. ;D
Obama, anyone?
In all seriousness though, I'd personally say Alexander, and/or the emperor Vespasian. In some ways, even the emperors Nero and Caligula were great in their own fashions - both were popular with the roman Plebs, much of their poor reputation was the result of unavoidable mental illness. Before he fell seriously ill Caligula is reported as being a hugely talented and promising emperor.
Obama, anyone?
In all seriousness though, I'd personally say Alexander, and/or the emperor Vespasian. In some ways, even the emperors Nero and Caligula were great in their own fashions - both were popular with the roman Plebs, much of their poor reputation was the result of unavoidable mental illness. Before he fell seriously ill Caligula is reported as being a hugely talented and promising emperor.
He gradually grew more and more insane, I'll grant you, but one of the major causes of his insanity was the power he held. He quite definitely abused his power, but he was a very avid patron of the dramatic arts, and despite his insanity he had great plans for Rome in that regard.
Please tell me you've read the sources before making such a sweeping statement about one man's entire life ;)
Lincoln gg op no re.
Im from the south, but this man revolutionised warfare. One of the American greats.
Rail roads, telegrams, mass production.
Rail roads, telegrams, mass production.
That's infrastructure, and had little to no effect on a revolution of warfare.
Rail roads, telegrams, mass production.
That's infrastructure, and had little to no effect on a revolution of warfare.
You are very naive if you believe that infrastructre and communications had no impact on warfare. Logistics and communications is one of the fundamental things that determine the success or failure of campaigns. Poor communication essentially lost quatre-bras for the french since d'Erlons corps was playing pong between Napoleon and Ney since there was a breakdown in communications. Not to mention logistics being a huge part of why the Russian campaign failed for napoleon.
Having said that though, giving Lincoln credit for those economic and scientific concepts is not really correct either.
Rail roads, telegrams, mass production.
That's infrastructure, and had little to no effect on a revolution of warfare.
You are very naive if you believe that infrastructre and communications had no impact on warfare. Logistics and communications is one of the fundamental things that determine the success or failure of campaigns. Poor communication essentially lost quatre-bras for the french since d'Erlons corps was playing pong between Napoleon and Ney since there was a breakdown in communications. Not to mention logistics being a huge part of why the Russian campaign failed for napoleon.
Having said that though, giving Lincoln credit for those economic and scientific concepts is not really correct either.
You mistook what I said, as most people do on the World Wide Internet.
Rail roads, telegrams, mass production.
That's infrastructure, and had little to no effect on a revolution of warfare.
Rail roads, telegrams, mass production.
That's infrastructure, and had little to no effect on a revolution of warfare.
What I meant is that Lincoln did not revolutionize warfare, and infrastructure does not either. Infrastructure has an effect on war, but did not "revolutionize" it.
Rail roads, telegrams, mass production.
That's infrastructure, and had little to no effect on a revolution of warfare.
What I meant is that Lincoln did not revolutionize warfare, and infrastructure does not either. Infrastructure has an effect on war, but did not "revolutionize" it.
I think nobody denies that having access to superior infrastructure ( Lines of communication, better possibilities for supplies and reinforcements and so on) is helpful. However, I'd argue that it did not revolutionize warfare, in the sense of from the point that railways and telegraphs were invented, and indeed before this, beginning with the national armies of the french revolution, and 1914, warfare looked very much the same.
It was not until World war I that war was truly "revolutionized" here in the west.
Mines has to be William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.Which you then lost.
A few reasons why:
1.Im Scottish
2.Mainly the way they United The Nobles of Scotland to fight together and defeat the English army Gaining us independence
And yes i know most people think of braveheart... (you know with the Kilt wearing Rabble from the north but Scotland had mailed infantry and cavalry)
I would give more but im tired and its Half one in the MorningSpoiler(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.directart.co.uk%2Fmall%2Fimages%2Fdhm1169.jpg&hash=19c4e90fc8320e36325fc915a7a3622ec4b60ba5)[close]
Tavington, don't be provocative.
Tavington, don't be provocative.Wasn't being provocative was simply providing a counter argument to his statement is all.
Las Malvinas son Argentinas!No.
Alexander The Not so Great? - The most overrated prick of all time, he gets far more glory than he deserves. (Lets get in the freacking desert to gangbang one tiny fucking village).
1) Generalissimo Alexander Vasilievich SuvorovFull nameAleksandr Vasiliyevich Suvorov, Prince of Italy, Count of Rymnik, Count of the Holy Roman Empire, Prince of Sardinia, Generalissimo of Russia's Ground and Naval forces, Field Marshal of the Austrian and Sardinian armies; seriously wounded six times, he was the recipient of the Order of St. Andrew the First Called Apostle, Order of St. George the Bringer of Victory First Class, Order of St. Vladimir First Class, Order of St. Alexander Nevsky, Order of St. Anna First Class, Grand Cross of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, (Austria) Order of Maria Teresa First Class, (Prussia) Order of the Black Eagle, Order of the Red Eagle, the Pour le Merite, (Sardinia) Order of the Revered Saints Maurice and Lazarus, (Bavaria) Order of St. Gubert, the Golden Lionness, (France) United Orders of the Carmelite Virgin Mary and St. Lazarus (on 20. April 1800), (Poland) Order of the White Eagle, the Order of Saint Stanislaus.[close]
One of a few leaders who had never participated in a (including commanding ) lost a battle ( 63 won, 0 lost ), who had helped 8 wars to be won for Russia
( Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743) - Win
War of the Austrian Succession - Win
Seven Years' War - Win
Bar Confederation - Win
Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774) - Win
Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792) - Win
Kościuszko Uprising - Win
War of the Second Coalition - Win )
Truly above all standards of modern history
Lord Wellington!
Showing Napoleon who is the boss at Waterloo with help from the Prussians!
*Holds Durring back* It's not worth it m8. It's ok m8 he didn't mean it m8. ;)Lord Wellington!
Showing Napoleon who is the boss at Waterloo with help from the Prussians!
Must...Resist...
The Russo-Turkish wars should not even count. They had way more men. On the Russian side it was nearly 1 million, while Ottomans had 281 000 men. ;) (No offence)
Edit: And they had much better technology too.
I would have to give it to Dan Sickles general of the 3rd Corps in the Army of the Potomac
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcovers.openlibrary.org%2Fb%2Fid%2F2078049-M.jpg&hash=c0404efcff2a607e08ffc7f53b1b3093acf9dd07)
Sickles to me is one of the most interesting and colorful characters of the Civil War. Before the war he Sickles shot and killed the son of Francis Scott Key over a woman he was in love with. When he was on trial he used a defense of temporary insanity, the first time the defense had been used in the United States Then at Gettysburg he, depending how you view it almost lost....or saved the battle. He moved almost 1/2 a mile out in front of where he was supposed to be. During Longsteet's attack he lost his leg to a cannon ball, and when we was being taken away was relaxing and smoking a cigar. (He won the medal of honor for his fighting at Gettysburg.)
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fcd%2FSickles_leg.jpg&hash=3e49ce95ce2b067dbc78afc0510884c351d7f194)
A lot of people say he almost could of lost the battle but his view was, by moving into his position so far ahead of the main line, tired Longsteet's men that they couldn't take Little Round Top. After the battle he declared himself a hero.
The Russo-Turkish wars should not even count. They had way more men. On the Russian side it was nearly 1 million, while Ottomans had 281 000 men. ;) (No offence)
Edit: And they had much better technology too.
He was outnumbered at Kozluca, Focşani and Rymnik where he delivered his decisive blows. They did have superior artillery though, and wide-spread use of the bayonet tended to trump the sabres the Ottomans still relied on in close quarters.
Focşani and Rymnik were fought in 1789. In both cases Suvorov was outnumbered by the Turks by at least 3:1.
The entire Russian army may have been a million strong, but they never committed anywhere near that many in the theatre of operations. Both Russian and Turkish sources cite 100,000 Russians total against 97,000 - granted, a Russian advantage.
"281,000" is the figure attributed to the Ottoman Army in 1877-78.
Buenaventura Durruti - Anarchist leader of the Durutti Collumn during the Spanish Civil War, took Catalonia and successfully implemented Anarchism, they rushed in the defense of Madrid and helped repulse the Nationalist attack.
He was quite an inspirational leader, too bad he got shot by a sniper early on in the civil war.
Doesn't Anarchists and leaders usually not get along very well?
4. Erwin Rommel: I like his abilities as a general in North Africa. He was all that kept the Germans and Italians there from a complete and total defeat. If he had still been alive and in charge of the Normandy defenses during D-Day, I have a feeling it might have gone differently for the allies.
So you could say Rommels wifes birthday cost them the war?Hitler having person control of 2 key panzer divisions cost them the battle for normandy and in turn the war.
Nicht slecht.
Adolf Hitler.Eh? His own generals resented his control over the army. As they put it, he was a corporal leading an army, and he was a major reason Germany lost WWII. His direct control over the eastern front destroyed any chance the Germans had of winning. Although he got Germany on its feet after the post-WWI depression (no small feat), he was a cruddy military leader. Also, he was a mass-murderer. As far as evil goes, he fits the bill pretty well.
Lasalle
Subutai (Mongolian: Сүбээдэй, Sübeedei; Classic Mongolian: Sübügätäi or Sübü'ätäi; Tsubodai 1175–1248) was the primary military strategist and general of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan. He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history.
He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart.
Adolf Hitler.Eh? His own generals resented his control over the army. As they put it, he was a corporal leading an army, and he was a major reason Germany lost WWII. His direct control over the eastern front destroyed any chance the Germans had of winning. Although he got Germany on its feet after the post-WWI depression (no small feat), he was a cruddy military leader. Also, he was a mass-murderer. As far as evil goes, he fits the bill pretty well.
Personally, one of my favorite leaders is Jan Zizka. I also like Suvorov, but I feel Zizka is under-appreciated. Zizka pioneered mobile defensive warfare, using new technology (handgonnes and artillery) and new tactics (war wagons) to great effect. He lost both of his eyes, and led his forces blind while never losing a single battle (alongside Alexander the Great, Scipio Africanus, Genghis Khan, Alexander Suvorov, and Khalid ibn al-Walid). A typical example of a battle he fought would be Kunta Hora. It is typical because Zizka's peasantry is outnumbered 10-1, they are fighting the creme of the Hapsburg army (knights), and they win, inflicting heavy casualties.
LasalleSpoiler(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-wDJpIdHzoiw%2FTvS7PY2tSgI%2FAAAAAAAABTs%2FMytKqO5n2SA%2Fs1600%2Fgeneral-antoine-charles-louis-lasalle-jean-baptiste-edouard-detaille.jpg&hash=73f64e705e6f0690b7ce9cec39ed7b27948705f0)[close]
Best cavarlyman ever to have lived on this planet.
Gandhi.
Gandhi.
Gandhi was a racist nationalist.
Adolf Hitler.Eh? His own generals resented his control over the army. As they put it, he was a corporal leading an army, and he was a major reason Germany lost WWII. His direct control over the eastern front destroyed any chance the Germans had of winning. Although he got Germany on its feet after the post-WWI depression (no small feat), he was a cruddy military leader. Also, he was a mass-murderer. As far as evil goes, he fits the bill pretty well.
Personally, one of my favorite leaders is Jan Zizka. I also like Suvorov, but I feel Zizka is under-appreciated. Zizka pioneered mobile defensive warfare, using new technology (handgonnes and artillery) and new tactics (war wagons) to great effect. He lost both of his eyes, and led his forces blind while never losing a single battle (alongside Alexander the Great, Scipio Africanus, Genghis Khan, Alexander Suvorov, and Khalid ibn al-Walid). A typical example of a battle he fought would be Kunta Hora. It is typical because Zizka's peasantry is outnumbered 10-1, they are fighting the creme of the Hapsburg army (knights), and they win, inflicting heavy casualties.
"Leadership has been defined many ways but for the basis of this argument I find this one most all encompassing, leadership is "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task." (1). If we use this definition we see where Hitler obviously excels in this category, he is one of the greatest orators of his day, and had the German people eating out of his hand.
You may be thinking that many men other then Hitler had this ability of influence but we see in Hitler the ability to inspire his people to switch from one distinct political ideology to another without bloodshed. He also brought Germany out of the deep depression they were suffering from in post world war 1 Europe. If we consider only that leadership is the ability of one person to influence others to support a common cause we see no equal to Hitler, no other person in history influenced as many people willingly into supporting one common cause without bloodshed.
Having given reasons why Hitler is one of the greatest leaders in history, i ask con to either disprove Hitler was a good leader or suggest a more influential individual in history."
He was actually nearly forced to go to war in 1939, cause german economy would have collapsed otherwise.
QuoteHe was actually nearly forced to go to war in 1939, cause german economy would have collapsed otherwise.
When he attacked Poland, he tought the world would turn the other cheek again as they did several times before. He wasn't expecting Britain and France to step up, especially because he made the Poles look like the first agressors by making his soldiers get in Polish uniforms and shoot against Germans (Im not sure if they actually shot at the soldiers or if they just shot some rounds into the air), who gave him some sort of a reason to invade Poland.
QuoteHe was actually nearly forced to go to war in 1939, cause german economy would have collapsed otherwise.
When he attacked Poland, he tought the world would turn the other cheek again as they did several times before. He wasn't expecting Britain and France to step up, especially because he made the Poles look like the first agressors by making his soldiers get in Polish uniforms and shoot against Germans (Im not sure if they actually shot at the soldiers or if they just shot some rounds into the air), who gave him some sort of a reason to invade Poland.
Oh he definitly wanted the war. That's how he ruined germany's economy, by spending every cent on weapons.
Not sure. I didn't see how your comment was connected to mine, so I just clarified.
...without bloodshed.
Hitler having person control of 2 key panzer divisions cost them the battle for normandy and in turn the war.
Kolonel of the 8de, forget his name though :/
the Queen Victoria.Victoria looks as if she couldn't be bothered with life.
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbordercollie.com.mx%2Fsite%2Fphp%2Fuploads%2FVictoriaAndSharp.jpg&hash=193c7b2bf4a16a3c6d7a229678e03b59de1b060f)
Otto von Bismarck, ::)
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F10%2FBundesarchiv_Bild_146-2005-0057%252C_Otto_von_Bismarck.jpg&hash=f150f0b079d8926aa7712bbbfa3110eff209a0fe)
Willhelm II, the Kaiser of all the germans.
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fed%2FKaiser_Wilhelm_Ii_and_Germany_1890_-_1914_HU68367.jpg&hash=e2fd060feacdb75626b473fb251eba367da2852c)
:)
Victoria always wore black after her beloved husband Albert died. That's for about six decades, if I'm not mistaken.Im talking about her face. Its like "Am I bovered?"
Victoria always wore black after her beloved husband Albert died. That's for about six decades, if I'm not mistaken.Im talking about her face. Its like "Am I bovered?"
Victoria always wore black after her beloved husband Albert died. That's for about six decades, if I'm not mistaken.Im talking about her face. Its like "Am I bovered?"
At least she looks into the camera. Until the 1900s it seems the fashion of photographing was: Look in every general direction but the photographer.
Leonidas, a big part of the Greek army fled, he, quite some spartans and a small part of the greek army stood their ground and killed quite some Persians even though they got trapped because of a traitor that showed the Persions a secret route.Wow they should really make a graphic novel out of that, then turn it into a film featuring the likes of Gerard Butler, Lena Headey and Dominic West!
Leonidas, a big part of the Greek army fled, he, quite some spartans and a small part of the greek army stood their ground and killed quite some Persians even though they got trapped because of a traitor that showed the Persions a secret route.
Leonidas, a big part of the Greek army fled, he, quite some spartans and a small part of the greek army stood their ground and killed quite some Persians even though they got trapped because of a traitor that showed the Persions a secret route.
Leonidas, a big part of the Greek army fled, he, quite some spartans and a small part of the greek army stood their ground and killed quite some Persians even though they got trapped because of a traitor that showed the Persions a secret route.
Did you honestly just use "300" as a valid historical source?
Leonidas, a big part of the Greek army fled, he, quite some spartans and a small part of the greek army stood their ground and killed quite some Persians even though they got trapped because of a traitor that showed the Persions a secret route.
Did you honestly just use "300" as a valid historical source?
Not everyone is such an historical bad ass like you Tali, get over it! :P
Leonidas, a big part of the Greek army fled, he, quite some spartans and a small part of the greek army stood their ground and killed quite some Persians even though they got trapped because of a traitor that showed the Persions a secret route.
Did you honestly just use "300" as a valid historical source?
Not everyone is such an historical bad ass like you Tali, get over it! :P
No, seriously, this is beyond dumb. Who can honestly think 300 has any but basic roots in history. It's like citing Lord of the Rings for medieval history class.
Leonidas, a big part of the Greek army fled, he, quite some spartans and a small part of the greek army stood their ground and killed quite some Persians even though they got trapped because of a traitor that showed the Persions a secret route.
Did you honestly just use "300" as a valid historical source?
Not everyone is such an historical bad ass like you Tali, get over it! :P
No, seriously, this is beyond dumb. Who can honestly think 300 has any but basic roots in history. It's like citing Lord of the Rings for medieval history class.
It is not that far off...
Not just hollywood. Have you ever seen those Russian movies? They sure are 'intresting'.
I'm more talking about the modern movies. Lancers balled, 1612, etc.
...1612...
Kim Jong IlGood dreams, sweet prince
RIP
Cunningham A.B. - British admiral from WW2 (Probably 3rd/2nd best admiral from the war)
Responsible for the first naval all aircraft attack in history (Very successful attack on Taranto in 1941, before Pearl Harbour) and the devestation of the Italian battle fleet at the Battle of Cape Matapan.
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4132%2F4959390889_9acbf8ca84_o.jpg&hash=012a7b6bbf4f68537eff6a23d63f338e043d0d52)
Yay for ABC! (His nickname #yolo)
Flagships:
HMS Rodney (Very famous battleship)
HMS Scorpion (Crappy destroyer)
´´sweden owning russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_(1700)
Karl XII.
Pretty beast Swedish king who pretty much beat 3 Great Powers on his own.
Karl XII.
Pretty beast Swedish king who pretty much beat 3 Great Powers on his own.
ur really dumb it was really misty and he was unlucky
ur really dumb it was really misty and he was unlucky
Thrust me.
ur really dumb it was really misty and he was unlucky
Thrust me.
???
They were just Vikings ^.^Karl XII.
Pretty beast Swedish king who pretty much beat 3 Great Powers on his own.
Sadly, like most of our more prominent kings, he manages to stupidly get himself killed in battle.
Gustav Adolf, looking at you here.
Anyway a lot of great gen, had only luck, that they didnt die on the battlefield. For me the best one is gen Lee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQDAL819oPg
Gettysburg, his biggest fault, he didnt blame tactic or soldiers only himself. Also, Union lost more men in battle against smaller army:P
Julius Caesar has to be mentioned as one of the greatest. The man was a cunning and ruthless leader and a great military tactician. Although I do have to say that many of Rome's victories come from the legionnaires, there was a quote in the book I have called "The Roman Army" by Peter Connolly which said "The Romans were not great tacticians but relied mainly on the discipline and superior skill of the legionaries. Even bad generals could win battles." However, Julius Caesar had a very good habit of putting his men in positions of minimal risk to his men.
Another person who belongs on this list is Confederate General Robert E. Lee. This man was a brilliant general, a master tactician, and an incredible and inspiring leader. He will go down in history as an incredible man capable of great victories. And the men that he chose were incredible men in their own right. Thomas Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart were great, daring leaders who, under Lee, were easily some of the best generals. If the Confederacy was able to match the Union's industry and manpower, these three men would have steamrolled the Union army and won the war.
Aye, it seems Russia is the "Achilles Heel" of European military leaders. First, Napoleon's grand army, then Hitler's nazi force.
Go even further toKarl GustavKing Charles XII of Sweden and his attmepted campaign into Russia. He had 12000 musketeers, 20000 other infantry, 4000 cavalry, and 400 cannons. He lost 60% of his force in Russia, and another 30% to the Polish. But, he... he was a very stupid man.
Hannibal Barca.
Hitler didn't for naught get higher that Corporal =P
Thank you Sven!!Hitler didn't for naught get higher that Corporal =P
I doubt he is talking about his military leadership, he's most likely talking about his political leadership. Hitler didn't become the leader of a nation for no reason after all.
I enjoy reading about Hasso von Manteuffel at the moment, another great German divisional commander in WW2. There are so many others that it'd just take ages to mention them all. Other favorites are Napoleon I, Gustav II Adolf and good old Friedrich II
... Adolf Hitler
... Adolf Hitler
If the leader of my country, democraticly elected or not, started the bloodiest conflict in the history of mankind, leading to millions of dead countrymen, the virtual destruction of every major city in my country, the loss of sovereignty for several years and my country beeing split into four (later two) parts for 50 years, I'd sure as hell wouldn't consider him my favorite. I am very interested in your reasoning here.
People that said Adolf Hitler disgusts me...You don't need to worry. I they don't really mean it. If they were to see a gulag or consentration camp IRL I think they would change their minds.
People that said Adolf Hitler disgusts me...
Damn Sven, you just went full retard.
Fascism was never a viable system and its buried, keep it buried.
I'm sorry but you gotta deal with my bluntness.And then left communism be?
Stalinism is quite bad but gave a bad name to communism as a whole, the USSR and other cold war socialist states were the authoritarian side.
In my opinion they should've smashed fascism instantly when it rose because it ruined a lot of great workers movements in the world, especially Europe. (not to mention the other, more horrid manifestations of fascism)
And then left communism be?
By the time the National-socialist rose to power in Germany, communism had been replaced by Stalinism in the USSR. Technically it had become less extreme communist under Lenin, and many believe Trotksi would have followed the same way of governing, but then Stalin came and he just fucked everything up for the sake of (unnecessary) industrializing.
By the time the National-socialist rose to power in Germany, communism had been replaced by Stalinism in the USSR. Technically it had become less extreme communist under Lenin, and many believe Trotksi would have followed the same way of governing, but then Stalin came and he just fucked everything up for the sake of (unnecessary) industrializing.
By the time the National-socialist rose to power in Germany, communism had been replaced by Stalinism in the USSR. Technically it had become less extreme communist under Lenin, and many believe Trotksi would have followed the same way of governing, but then Stalin came and he just fucked everything up for the sake of (unnecessary) industrializing.
Kinda saved Russia in the end, lol.
Well, Hitler didn't want to take over the world. He wanted to unite the Germanic peoples.By the time the National-socialist rose to power in Germany, communism had been replaced by Stalinism in the USSR. Technically it had become less extreme communist under Lenin, and many believe Trotksi would have followed the same way of governing, but then Stalin came and he just fucked everything up for the sake of (unnecessary) industrializing.
(unnecessary) without the industrializing of Russia germany would have won the 2nd world war. Even do Stalin was a terrible person and his actions arent justified with this its just a sad thing in history that without his 5 years plan we would all be speaking german by now.
Well, Hitler didn't want to take over the world. He wanted to unite the Germanic peoples.By the time the National-socialist rose to power in Germany, communism had been replaced by Stalinism in the USSR. Technically it had become less extreme communist under Lenin, and many believe Trotksi would have followed the same way of governing, but then Stalin came and he just fucked everything up for the sake of (unnecessary) industrializing.
(unnecessary) without the industrializing of Russia germany would have won the 2nd world war. Even do Stalin was a terrible person and his actions arent justified with this its just a sad thing in history that without his 5 years plan we would all be speaking german by now.
He also allied with the Japanese, and no problem with them invading the Dutch Indies, where they imprisoned and killed thousands of Dutch people, all the while Dutch were considered a Germanic brethren people.Hitler logic right there.
He also allied with the Japanese, and no problem with them invading the Dutch Indies, where they imprisoned and killed thousands of Dutch people, all the while Dutch were considered a Germanic brethren people.Hitler logic right there.
I'm confused about who is against me and who is supporting...
I'm not finding it weird, it just shows Hitler was not too concerned about their fate. He never did anything to try and free them.Try to free whom?
I'm not finding it weird, it just shows Hitler was not too concerned about their fate. He never did anything to try and free them.Try to free whom?
I'm not finding it weird, it just shows Hitler was not too concerned about their fate. He never did anything to try and free them.Try to free whom?
The Dutchies imprisoned by his Allies the Japanese. Who, according to the Nazi's, were Germanic and a brethren people.
The Netherlands had declared Neutrality.
So we settled on the point Hitler was just a powerhungry madman that hated Commies and didn't really care about Germanic people, be they German, Dutch or Danish? Good.
You did not need the Netherlands to invade France, as the 1st World War showed.
On a site note, the Netherlands were governed by the Austrian nazi Seyss-Inquart as Reichscommissar. The Dutch Nationalist-socialist party and their leader were as ignored by the Germans as they were hated by the Dutch. There was no puppet government, only direct Nazi rule.
The only reason to invade the Netherlands if your ultimate goal is France, is because of the fear of an stab-in-the-back attack. But as the Netherlands had declared neutrality, and its army was in a bad shape, that was really no valid reason. You only need to cross trough Belgium, as they showed in the first World War.
France was for a good part under Vichy-France rule. That's not the same as a Reichskommisar.
You did not need the Netherlands to invade France, as the 1st World War showed.
Not sure if would have annexed Russia tho.Well, Hitler didn't want to take over the world. He wanted to unite the Germanic peoples.By the time the National-socialist rose to power in Germany, communism had been replaced by Stalinism in the USSR. Technically it had become less extreme communist under Lenin, and many believe Trotksi would have followed the same way of governing, but then Stalin came and he just fucked everything up for the sake of (unnecessary) industrializing.
(unnecessary) without the industrializing of Russia germany would have won the 2nd world war. Even do Stalin was a terrible person and his actions arent justified with this its just a sad thing in history that without his 5 years plan we would all be speaking german by now.
Last time I checked Russia wasn't Germanic.
The only reason to invade the Netherlands if your ultimate goal is France, is because of the fear of an stab-in-the-back attack. But as the Netherlands had declared neutrality, and its army was in a bad shape, that was really no valid reason. You only need to cross trough Belgium, as they showed in the first World War.
France was for a good part under Vichy-France rule. That's not the same as a Reichskommisar.
Not sure if would have annexed Russia tho.Well, Hitler didn't want to take over the world. He wanted to unite the Germanic peoples.By the time the National-socialist rose to power in Germany, communism had been replaced by Stalinism in the USSR. Technically it had become less extreme communist under Lenin, and many believe Trotksi would have followed the same way of governing, but then Stalin came and he just fucked everything up for the sake of (unnecessary) industrializing.
(unnecessary) without the industrializing of Russia germany would have won the 2nd world war. Even do Stalin was a terrible person and his actions arent justified with this its just a sad thing in history that without his 5 years plan we would all be speaking german by now.
Last time I checked Russia wasn't Germanic.
What do you mean by suffering under Communist rule? only the rich people did there was no crimes in the communist states everyone had a job compared to the capitalist with the high amount of unemployed people, homeless etc. And dont drag the KGB or the GRU into this the USA was and are still using the CIA the exact same way as the sovjet used to the KGB and GRU. And it was the Sovjet union who won the war D-Day was completly uncessary the decisive moment of the war was at Stalingrad, Leningrad and Kursk.
Grammar nazis please leave me alone im swedish, english isnt my native langue.
What do you mean by suffering under Communist rule? only the rich people did there was no crimes in the communist states everyone had a job compared to the capitalist with the high amount of unemployed people, homeless etc. And dont drag the KGB or the GRU into this the USA was and are still using the CIA the exact same way as the sovjet used to the KGB and GRU. And it was the Sovjet union who won the war D-Day was completly uncessary the decisive moment of the war was at Stalingrad, Leningrad and Kursk.
Grammar nazis please leave me alone im swedish, english isnt my native langue.
You are completely fucking deluded.
Which is obviously meant sarcastic.
What do you mean by suffering under Communist rule? only the rich people did there was no crimes in the communist states everyone had a job compared to the capitalist with the high amount of unemployed people, homeless etc. And dont drag the KGB or the GRU into this the USA was and are still using the CIA the exact same way as the sovjet used to the KGB and GRU. And it was the Sovjet union who won the war D-Day was completly uncessary the decisive moment of the war was at Stalingrad, Leningrad and Kursk.
Grammar nazis please leave me alone im swedish, english isnt my native langue.
You are completely fucking deluded.
Real communism never existed to begin with. All those communist states were authoritarian regimes u could argue that it was the dictatorship of the proletariat which is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism according to Marx.
On top of that no regime ever called itsself communist Mao talked bout New Democracy and Lenin bout War Communism. But real communism didnt exist and is probably unrealistic to ever establish as a form of goverment what most people think of as communism these days are only pictures the western propaganda(mainly of the US during the cold war) painted in the end those systems always had more of the characteristics of Dictatorships than of communism .
I'm not seeing how the Eastern Front was more important than the Western.
I'm not sure you understand how things work.
What do you mean by suffering under Communist rule? only the rich people did there was no crimes in the communist states everyone had a job compared to the capitalist with the high amount of unemployed people, homeless etc. And dont drag the KGB or the GRU into this the USA was and are still using the CIA the exact same way as the sovjet used to the KGB and GRU. And it was the Sovjet union who won the war D-Day was completly uncessary the decisive moment of the war was at Stalingrad, Leningrad and Kursk.
You are completely fucking deluded.
What dont like the truth? its based on facts?
Agreed im not a a real communist the avatar is just to provoke certain nazis and people that belive in American propaganda.
Having hard times finding an answer?No, but you're honestly not worth anybody's time.
What do you mean by suffering under Communist rule? only the rich people did there was no crimes in the communist states everyone had a job compared to the capitalist with the high amount of unemployed people, homeless etc. And dont drag the KGB or the GRU into this the USA was and are still using the CIA the exact same way as the sovjet used to the KGB and GRU. And it was the Sovjet union who won the war D-Day was completly uncessary the decisive moment of the war was at Stalingrad, Leningrad and Kursk.
You are completely fucking deluded.
What dont like the truth? its based on facts?
You're comparing criminal rates between a totalitarian police state, where dissidents are punished by a permanent visit to Siberia to a liberal democracy. Unemployment tends to be slightly lower in states that mandate collective farms and industries compared to free-market, business-oriented economies.The claim that there was no suffering under soviet rule shows how little of Soviet history you truly understand, or want to understand.
Agreed im not a a real communist the avatar is just to provoke certain nazis and people that belive in American propaganda.
You do realize that war-photo was staged and photoshopped? They added more smoke for a dramatic effect, as well as removing one of the watches on the soldier (He had two, obviously looted), because the Soviets said stealing did not exist in their 'perfect' communist society, just like you just claimed.
What front was more important does not matter. Both the UK and the USSR could not have done without US support, especially tanks, weapons and other machinery.
Nobody wanted the D-Day landing more then the Soviets, especially Stalin himself, as they knew they would be unable to take on the whole German army - They needed an extra front.
Yeah cos the US has totally killed multiple millions of people, the FBI and CIA are totally the same as the Cheka, wake up mate.
this avatar is used to provoke stupid nazis.
i just wanna show you all how important the Sovjet was during the 2nd world war and remove the picture of the USA as Europes saviors.
the american supplies where extremly important i just wanna show you all how important the Sovjet was during the 2nd world war and remove the picture of the USA as Europes saviors.
Yeah cos the US has totally killed multiple millions of people, the FBI and CIA are totally the same as the Cheka, wake up mate.
Ever heard of Iran, Afganistan, Iraq? or killerdrones? or what they did to southamerican socialist regims? time to wake up and get ride of the image of the perfect of the USA regim.
What do you mean by suffering under Communist rule? only the rich people did there was no crimes in the communist states everyone had a job compared to the capitalist with the high amount of unemployed people, homeless etc. And dont drag the KGB or the GRU into this the USA was and are still using the CIA the exact same way as the sovjet used to the KGB and GRU. And it was the Sovjet union who won the war D-Day was completly uncessary the decisive moment of the war was at Stalingrad, Leningrad and Kursk.
You are completely fucking deluded.
What dont like the truth? its based on facts?
You're comparing criminal rates between a totalitarian police state, where dissidents are punished by a permanent visit to Siberia to a liberal democracy. Unemployment tends to be slightly lower in states that mandate collective farms and industries compared to free-market, business-oriented economies.The claim that there was no suffering under soviet rule shows how little of Soviet history you truly understand, or want to understand.
There was suffering under the Sovjet rule but, i just want show how the USA is using the same "tactics" as the Sovjets or whats worst a permament visit to siberia or a killerdrone destroying your house and killing your family? having american bombers destroy your village having isreal troops kill your familiy using American weapons. or starving to death? booth countries are horrible im no real communist this avatar is used to provoke stupid nazis.
Quotethis avatar is used to provoke stupid nazis.
Many people died before they could make that pictur. Many people died, in fact, for the sole purpose of taking that picture, so using it for that purpose is pretty much as disrespective as can be.Quotei just wanna show you all how important the Sovjet was during the 2nd world war and remove the picture of the USA as Europes saviors.
'The sovjet' is used to describe on person living in the USSR. If you can't even get that right, how are we supposed to take you serious? You are just making an idiot of yourselves, and of the men you are trying to 'defend'. Just stop.
What do you mean by suffering under Communist rule? only the rich people did there was no crimes in the communist states everyone had a job compared to the capitalist with the high amount of unemployed people, homeless etc. And dont drag the KGB or the GRU into this the USA was and are still using the CIA the exact same way as the sovjet used to the KGB and GRU. And it was the Sovjet union who won the war D-Day was completly uncessary the decisive moment of the war was at Stalingrad, Leningrad and Kursk.
You are completely fucking deluded.
What dont like the truth? its based on facts?
You're comparing criminal rates between a totalitarian police state, where dissidents are punished by a permanent visit to Siberia to a liberal democracy. Unemployment tends to be slightly lower in states that mandate collective farms and industries compared to free-market, business-oriented economies.The claim that there was no suffering under soviet rule shows how little of Soviet history you truly understand, or want to understand.
There was suffering under the Sovjet rule but, i just want show how the USA is using the same "tactics" as the Sovjets or whats worst a permament visit to siberia or a killerdrone destroying your house and killing your family? having american bombers destroy your village having isreal troops kill your familiy using American weapons. or starving to death? booth countries are horrible im no real communist this avatar is used to provoke stupid nazis.
Do you really think the systematic murder of millions, and repression of hundreds of millions over nearly a century can compare to the destruction of some remote villages?
I'm not wasting any more time on this. Hopefully you will understand how wrong you are with time.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives. If you do not understand that, you are really not worth any of our time.
The Japanese population was taught that surrender was not an option and every one of them was willing to meaningless throw away their lives, if that was ordered or necessary to defend the fatherland. Look at Iwo Jima. Look at Okinawa. The head minister of the Admiralty literally said it would be a wonderful thing to happen - The entire nation and its people dead, "gone out as a flower "
A succesful invasion of Japan would not only cost the lives of millions of American, Soviet and other allied soldiers, but also of the nearly the entire Japanese population. Not to mention the war would be extended by years, while all the nations were already near bankruptcy. You have clearly no idea what you are talking about.
So instead of nuking the Emperors palace or military bases? they nuked two cities. but i agree on that it was quick way to end the war.
World war 2 was a Total war.
World war 2 was a Total war.
Total war does not excist.
World war 2 was a Total war.
Total war does not excist.
Are you serious? If you are going to say something so blatantly ignorant please back up your ridicoulus statement. You keep saying this every few pages and i've had enough of explaining it.
World war 2 was a Total war.
Total war does not excist.
Are you serious? If you are going to say something so blatantly ignorant please back up your ridicoulus statement. You keep saying this every few pages and i've had enough of explaining it.
World war 2 was a Total war.
Total war does not excist.
Are you serious? If you are going to say something so blatantly ignorant please back up your ridicoulus statement. You keep saying this every few pages and i've had enough of explaining it.
Ok.
SpoilerWorld war 2 was a Total war.
Total war does not excist.
Are you serious? If you are going to say something so blatantly ignorant please back up your ridicoulus statement. You keep saying this every few pages and i've had enough of explaining it.
Ok.
Thanks for reminding me that some of us were born with a brain.[close]
Shimazu Yoshihiro no doubt...
Napoleon occupied the Tsar's palace in Moskou for weeks. He still lost.He received only burnt down city and undisciplined army in Moscow :P
When Napoleon entered Moskou, the Russian military was in full panic. They had no idea what to do and just did nothing. The Tsar, as ever, couldn't make a decision, and therefor neither accepted nor really turned down Napoleons requests for peace. The ball was in his court and he did nothing. In Sint-Petersburg, rumors that the war was lost and over were spreading like wildfire, which led to the arrest of several civilians.(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffa%2FPlan_of_Moscow_1813.jpg%2F732px-Plan_of_Moscow_1813.jpg&hash=53afb2f39e15f6d184cba860af85d4c7b9cda675)
Moskou was far from burned to the ground and the French army was not that much more undisciplined then it usually was. The men were tired as shit though, and they had always thought that entering Moskou would mean an end to the campaign.
Napoleon occupied the Tsar's palace in Moskou for weeks. He still lost.He received only burnt down city and undisciplined army in Moscow :P
thus they had no army to retreat with and burn Moscow down while with Napoleon it was all along to plan get him as deep as possible in Russia and let the winter do its job
Charles XII,
He got into a war he did not start against multiple enemies, gave a black eye to most of em and is only military leader ever to be have Russia on its knees. Had he marched onward after Battle of Narva there was nothing between his army and Tsar's palace in Moscow.
Well Hitler was too quite close.
Charles XII,
He got into a war he did not start against multiple enemies, gave a black eye to most of em and is only military leader ever to be have Russia on its knees. Had he marched onward after Battle of Narva there was nothing between his army and Tsar's palace in Moscow.
Well Hitler was too quite close.
William V.
Charles XII,
He got into a war he did not start against multiple enemies, gave a black eye to most of em and is only military leader ever to be have Russia on its knees. Had he marched onward after Battle of Narva there was nothing between his army and Tsar's palace in Moscow.
Well Hitler was too quite close.
Except Poltava and poland where we lost our army.
Palfer
Birger Jarl, ruthless ambition at its finest.
Kemal's victories weren't enough to save the declining Empire from defeat, however, and despite Kemal's best efforts to kill everyone in the world, the Istanbul government finally capitulated to the British and French. The Western powers, pissed off about the whole "world war" thing, placed a super-harsh, Treaty of Versailles-style series of punishments on the Turks, forcing them to pay tribute, redrawing country boundaries, and carving up their land among the western powers.
Once again, Kemal had to put his sack down and tell the West to go f**k a donkey. This badass military commander didn't bust people up and down the Gallipoli shores just to sit back and let a bunch of goddamned Europeans take over his peoples' lands, and he immediately rejected the terms of the surrender, left Istanbul in a boat in the middle of the night, crossed the Black Sea, established a new governmental capital at Ankara, and declared open revolt against the foreign powers occupying his homeland. For the next two years, this tenacious, no-bullshit asskicker he battled the combined forces of France, Britain, and Greece, halting their offensive on his new capital, crushing them in battle, throwing them back to the Mediterranean, chasing the reinstated Sultan out of Istanbul for the second time, and finally establishing Turkish independence from foreign rule. Suck on that, trolls.
It was . . . in September 1918, that Makhno received the nickname Batko -- general leader of the revolutionary insurrection in the Ukraine.- Peter Arshinov
This took place in the following circumstances. Local pomeshchiks [landed gentry] in the major centres, the kulaks [rich peasants], and the German authorities [the Ukraine being occupied by them at the time], decided to eliminate Makhno and his detachment [of partisans] at any cost.
The pomeshchiks created a special volunteer detachment consisting of their own sons and those of kulaks for the decisive struggle against Makhno. On the 30th of September this detachment, with the help of the Austro-Germans, cornered Makhno in the region of Bol'shaya Mihhailovka, setting up strong military posts on all roads. At this time Makhno found himself with only 30 partisans and one machine gun. He was forced to make a fighting retreat, manoeuvring in the midst of numerous enemy forces. Arriving in the forest of Dibrivki, Makhno found himself in an extremely difficult situation.
The paths of retreat were occupied by the enemy. It was impossible for the detachment to break through, and escaping individually was beneath their revolutionary dignity. No-one in the detachment would agree to abandon their leader so as to save himself. After some reflection, two days later, Makhno decided to return to the village of Bol'shaya Mikhailovka (Dibrivki). Leaving the forest the partisans met peasants who came to warn them that there were large enemy forces in Dibrivki and that they should make haste to go elsewhere. This information did not stop Makhno and his partisans . . . [and] they set out for Bol'shaya Mikhailovka.
They approached the village guardedly. Makhno himself and a few of his comrades went on reconnaissance and saw a large enemy camp on the church square, dozens of machine guns, hundreds of saddle horses, and groups of cavalry. Peasants informed them that a battalion of Austrians and a special pomeshchik detachment were in the village. Retreat was impossible. Then Makhno, with his usual stubbornness and determination, said to his companions: 'Well, my friends! We should all be ready to die on this spot . . .' The movement was ominous, the men were firm and full of enthusiasm. All 30 saw only one path before them -- the path toward the enemy, who had about a thousand well-armed men, and they all realised that this meant certain death for them. All were moved, but none lost courage.
"It was at this movement that one of the partisans, Shchus', turned to Makhno and said:
"'From now on you will be Batko to all of us, and we vow to die with you in the ranks of the insurgents.'
"Then the whole detachment swore never to abandon the insurgent ranks, and to consider Makhno the general Batko of the entire revolutionary insurrection. Then they prepared to attack. Shchus' with five to seven men was assigned to attack the flank of the enemy. Makhno with the others attacked from the front. With a ferocious 'Hurrah!' the partisans threw themselves headlong against the enemy, smiting the very centre with sabres, rifles and revolvers. The attack had a shattering effect. The enemy, who were expecting nothing of the kind, were bowled over and began to flee in panic, saving themselves in groups and individually, abandoning arms, machine guns and horses. Without leaving them time to come to themselves, to become aware of the number of attacking forces, and to pass to a counter-attack, the insurgents chased them in separate groups, cutting them down in full gallop. A part of the pomeshchik detachment fled to the Volchya River, where they were drowned by peasants who had joined the battle. The enemy's defeat was complete.
"Local peasants and detachments of revolutionary insurgents came from all directions to triumphantly acclaim the heroes. They unanimously agreed to consider Makhno as Batko of the entire revolutionary insurrection in the Urkaine.
he also lead the massacre of Smyrna... and participated in the mass genocide of Armenians.
Spoiler(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglutenismybitch.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F01%2Frichard32.jpg&hash=ae20f5176f6c8481c350109a0a99ad51e58b695f)[close]
[/img][/spoiler]Hitler(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bspoiler%5D%5BIMG%5Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fglutenismybitch.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F01%2Frichard32.jpg&hash=4d83924340890297fbff21dabfa2130ecad96469)[close]
reprted enjoi ur ban
If the leader of my country, democraticly elected or not, started the bloodiest conflict in the history of mankind, leading to millions of dead countrymen, the virtual destruction of every major city in my country, the loss of sovereignty for several years and my country beeing split into four (later two) parts for 50 years, I'd sure as hell wouldn't consider him my favorite. I am very interested in your reasoning here.
Keep the Nazi scum bags and open fascists out of the thread guys, even in a joke context it still looks pretty bad thanks.lol
Robert the BrucePffft Robert the Bruce was a traitor and a foul leader to start. But granted he learnt his lesson and did well by the end.
Alexander the Great
Philip II of Macedon
Julius Caesar
Hannibal
Napoleon Bonaparte
I see your point but then again the current king of Scotland was I would say anyway the worst Scottish king ever to rule :PRobert the BrucePffft Robert the Bruce was a traitor and a foul leader to start. But granted he learnt his lesson and did well by the end.
Alexander the Great
Philip II of Macedon
Julius Caesar
Hannibal
Napoleon Bonaparte
In my opinion the greatest leader was Julius Caesar.
I see your point but then again the current king of Scotland was I would say anyway the worst Scottish king ever to rule :P
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives. If you do not understand that, you are really not worth any of our time.
Saved Americans do you mean that Americans are worth more then japanese lives? and if im not worth talking to why do you continue then? and the saved japanese lives just proves that the Americans would have caused civil causilties if they would have landed.
Rommel wasn't a nationalist.
Carl XVI Gustaf. Current King of Sweden.Spoiler(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzverige.com%2Fkingkong%2Fgrafica%2FCarl_XVI_Gustaf_09_600x425.jpg&hash=b7f0fb0a9aef0eba9648bf219ba8666766a6cb02)[close]Spoiler(https://i.imgur.com/7VWkxxU.jpg)[close]Spoiler(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.fod4.com%2Fimages%2Fuser_photos%2F1333280%2F7330678c3c5189b971d33b33f717b00d_width_600x.&hash=01b5f1a77c7deb86cda9c01ee98fa8da059df327)[close]Spoiler(https://i.imgur.com/NYDYCYJ.jpg)[close]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKUSpoilerNobody fucked the commies like Reagan.
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.posters57.com%2Fimages%2FRONALD-REAGAN%281%29.jpg&hash=635de1c657a984573324ef6ba34794f1b161c046)[close]
[12th]Col_TicoSo tru.
Always
[12th]Col_Tico
Always
Pol Pot, the best leader in existence. It's not like he killed millions of his countrymen for no real reason.
Pol Pot, the best leader in existence. It's not like he killed millions of his countrymen for no real reason.
Don't forget Saddam Hussein
Pol Pot, the best leader in existence. It's not like he killed millions of his countrymen for no real reason.
Don't forget Saddam Hussein
I feel like Ketchup is Friths child.....
And killing a few million people along the way, many of which were either entirely innocent or fellow communists.Hey there. To make an egalitarian utopia omelette, you gotta break a few eggs
You also have to make it egalitarian at some point.I don't know what history books you read but the equation is simple
[15thYork]Col_PurplePanda24th RagnarsonSpoilernah jk, probsChurchillGeorge S. Patton[close]
[12th]Col_Tico
Always
Attila the Hun, only because i watched the movie Attila (2001) a few days ago. This can change.
ketchup
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemotions.com%2Fdata%2Ffilms%2F0065%2F61%2F2%2Fphoto-Attila-le-Hun-Attila-2001-1.jpg&hash=9d831aef27a3324004ad51e11e3d0f402583bb6c)
Do I get muted if I say Hitler? After all, Germany (where the FSE servers are hosted) tries to pretend that he never existed. (*coughs*, ashamed)
He rose from an injured soldier (and a failed, impoverished artist in Vienna in the 1920s) to the steely leader of Germany.
He started opposing the Weimar Republic from 1923, yet, funnily enough, was invited to be the Germany Chancellor by the President.
He intensified Germany' secret re-arnament from 1933...
He cleverly broke GER's diplomatic isolation with 10 year non aggression pacts.
He had the balls (or startegic mind) to gradually start extending Germany's territorial reach in Europe.No wait, that's a bad thing. WAIT admin! I meant that he advocated or multiculturalism, and equal employment terms for all, regardless of gender or ethnicity, all while maintaining a tolerant political environment, where political pluralism was the key.SpoilerHe gassed the Jews, Negroes, Catholics, Handicapped, Gypsies, Communists, etc etc, in order to create the puurrfect Aryan Master Race[close]
What a man.
[Get the sarcasm, Internet? No? Then you should be mentioned in the spoiler above ^ too.]
Do I get muted if I say Hitler? After all, Germany (where the FSE servers are hosted) tries to pretend that he never existed. (*coughs*, ashamed)
He rose from an injured soldier (and a failed, impoverished artist in Vienna in the 1920s) to the steely leader of Germany.
He started opposing the Weimar Republic from 1923, yet, funnily enough, was invited to be the Germany Chancellor by the President.
He intensified Germany' secret re-arnament from 1933...
He cleverly broke GER's diplomatic isolation with 10 year non aggression pacts.
He had the balls (or startegic mind) to gradually start extending Germany's territorial reach in Europe.No wait, that's a bad thing. WAIT admin! I meant that he advocated or multiculturalism, and equal employment terms for all, regardless of gender or ethnicity, all while maintaining a tolerant political environment, where political pluralism was the key.SpoilerHe gassed the Jews, Negroes, Catholics, Handicapped, Gypsies, Communists, etc etc, in order to create the puurrfect Aryan Master Race[close]
What a man.
[Get the sarcasm, Internet? No? Then you should be mentioned in the spoiler above ^ too.]
Some of what you say is true, though some of it is unacceptable regardless of the (poor, in my opionon) humor and what you describe as sarcasm it contains.
The President, Hindenburg, did never like Hitler, but in fact he often disrespected, disregarded and on many occasions ridiculed him by , for example, calling him the "Bohemian corporal".
Hindenburg was old and he, officially, made Hitler become the chancellor, but what happened in the background and what made Hindenburg decide so was not mentioned by you.
A national conservative "circle" , a group of politicians mostly of noble and wealthy birth advising him in his political decisions saw their own interests in Hitler becoming cancellor, and in order to increase their own power supported him.
Hindenburg was surrounded by DNVP politicians, "Deutsche Nationale Volkspartei", a , as I said, conservative party that was somewhat still loyal to the emperor.
Additionally, Hitler received high financial support by several German concerns of the steel and arms industry because these expected a lot of contracts and money from him once he would lead and they expected him to protect them and the German economy from the socialists and communists who were , at the time, almost equal in strength with Hitler.
The companies' money allowed him to travel around all of Germany, hold speeches and hangup election posters in almost every German town and village as well as pay decent wages to the SA members(many people joined the SA because you'd get food and decent pay in a time of mass unemployment and poverty).
This part of the population, a small group of wealthy conservatives and industrials, highly supported Hitler and put him into power, it was neither himself ( as you claim) or his party, nor the German voters (in fact in the few years before his cancellorship things lookes bad for him with loss in members, bad election results and a financial situation getting worse and worse).
The political elite which lead these circles of people, mostly DNVP members, also thought that they would only use Hitler.
Hitler had to coalite with them inorder to form a government and so had they with him.
The plan was to put him as the cancellor of a government with mainly DNVP ministers and a DNVP president, Hindenburg.
Like that they thought they would enchain Hitler and put him under control, use him to gain power and restore order themselves.
The political structure of Germany before his takeover, the easy to exploit constitution and the serveral laws allowed Hitler to quickly expand his control over government and country.
Once he was in power, he began to seize most of which remained still in other hands.
There was serveral laws made that basically got rid of any oppositon, there was an order to shot Communists (who were his strongest counterpart) on sight.
Additionally, the seperation of powers was removed, so noone could stop him in bringing the state under his control.
Laws to bring political enemies in the predecessors of concentration camps were on the way.
On his takeover, Hitler did not only kill his political enemies, but also many of those who had helped him into power and those who knew much about him, even members of the same circles, incuding people from the cultis scene who are said to have helped Hitler at the very start of his carreer.
Granted, Hitler did , for the moment, improve the economic situation, but true is also that the improvements had a high price in from of extemely highdebts .
His plan was to let the defeated countries pay the bills (Poland, France ...).
Hitler did not like you said, singlehandedly take over Germany, it was his supporters that put him in the right position which he knew to exploit and use to his advantage, that's two different things.
Hitler brought terror and sorrow to Germany, Europe and the world, his successes, achievements and "positive traits" are nothing but microscopicly small and irrelevant compared to the tremendous and unspeakable pain, terror and death he caused, period.
And if you would have read the edit I made then you would know that my reply wasn't only addressed to you.
Wow the Communist hammer and sickle makes you so bada$$. Well, happily, Communism didn't work out any better, and now we have our liberal, multicultural, democratic societies. Yay for them.You are wrong.
☭
Favourite all time leader= Gaz
I have to say this so I don't get demoted
And socialism/communism is much worse than fascism, btw. :P
Socialism killed hundreds of millions of people while fascism got exterminated quite fast.And socialism/communism is much worse than fascism, btw. :P
How is a system that's built upon the principle to care for all, better then a system built on the principle to care for only the best?
You are wrong.
☭
Socialism killed hundreds of millions of people while fascism got exterminated quite fast.
I would call Christopher Columbus a capitalist and he alone would be responsible for ushering in the deaths of 100 million native Americans. So right there, I guess the two are even.
I grant you 1 Internet for that.goddamnit dutchie bourgeois scum i know you can gib more internet to the masses
The differende is, that Christopher Columbus just explored new land for his queen. Hitler killed millions of Jews on purpose, Stalin killed millions of anti-revolutionaries and prisoners of war on purpose, Mao let millions of his people die from starvation on purpose.Um yeah and when he got there...he killed natives and exploited the land...on purpose
But I don't want to say that only fascism or only socialism causes such terrible things.
I think especially Duurin knows exactly what I think about republics for example. ::)
And for that he got punished by his monarch.The differende is, that Christopher Columbus just explored new land for his queen. Hitler killed millions of Jews on purpose, Stalin killed millions of anti-revolutionaries and prisoners of war on purpose, Mao let millions of his people die from starvation on purpose.Um yeah and when he got there...he killed natives and exploited the land...on purpose
But I don't want to say that only fascism or only socialism causes such terrible things.
I think especially Duurin knows exactly what I think about republics for example. ::)
The USSR, China, North Korea etc are all State Capitalist, so in essence you are hating on Capitalism.I don't know what I should think about capitalism but I have a strong antipathy against my own and the US government and corrupt politicians working against their country or against humanity only for their own prosperity.
The USSR, China, North Korea etc are all State Capitalist, so in essence you are hating on Capitalism.
And for that he got punished by his monarch.
I don't know what I should think about capitalism but I have a strong antipathy against my own and the US government and corrupt politicians working against their country or against humanity only for their own prosperity.
The USSR, China, North Korea etc are all State Capitalist, so in essence you are hating on Capitalism.
Come on Augy. Don't ruin that one special moment in which we agree on something. Pls.
Ferdinand II. and Isabella I. believed that it was a crime against god to enslave the natives. When Columbus brought American slaves to Spain, Isabella spared them and brought them back to their homeland.I know those Spanish were so disgusted. So disgusting they continued their exploitation and genocide of the native people.
Later Columbus got dismissed as the governor of the colony.
The poor fulfillment of the laws led to many protests and claims. The laws were so often poorly applied that they were seen as simply a legalization of the previous poor situation.
They did not genocide them.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Burgos
The European peasants had similar rights.
This system was used simliar to slavery for around 30 years, then the conditions got improved. But I don't want to defend Spanish colonialists. This is long gone.They did not genocide them.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Burgos
The European peasants had similar rights.
Slavery is slavery. Whether you're given a fluffed pillow or not is irrelevant. Do you think if hitler gave the Jews some brisket with their bread and broth people would be going "well I mean they got some protein, no need to complain"This system was used simliar to slavery for around 30 years, then the conditions got improved.They did not genocide them.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Burgos
The European peasants had similar rights.
Slaves lived relatively well under slave masters because they were their property, that however doesnt condone Slavery.The problem in this short period after the beginning of the colonization of the new world was, that these Natives weren't the property of their lords, they had to be paid for their work. And this prohibited that they would be treated decent. It was forbidden to punish them but the estate owners did not care much about these laws.
Slaves lived relatively well under slave masters because they were their property, that however doesnt condone Slavery.The problem in this short period after the beginning of the colonization of the new world was, that these Natives weren't the property of their lords, they had to be paid for their work. And this prohibited that they would be treated decent. It was forbidden to punish them but the estate owners did not care much about these laws.
His favorite leader can be Hitler and I don't think that was argued that much. It was mostly on the claim that socialism/communism are worse than fascism.Slaves lived relatively well under slave masters because they were their property, that however doesnt condone Slavery.The problem in this short period after the beginning of the colonization of the new world was, that these Natives weren't the property of their lords, they had to be paid for their work. And this prohibited that they would be treated decent. It was forbidden to punish them but the estate owners did not care much about these laws.
Do you even realise that, by FSE logic, you aren't capable of producing either a valid argument or a right answer, because of your previous post about Hitler? You should see this yourself, realise you don't have anything to gain, and do yourself a favour and make a tactical withdrawel, meanwhile doing us a huge favour and not bringing your favourite leader up. Ever again.
This is no intended hostility, this is me doing you a favour.
Learn from it.
SpoilerHis favorite leader can be Hitler and I don't think that was argued that much. It was mostly on the claim that socialism/communism are worse than fascism.Slaves lived relatively well under slave masters because they were their property, that however doesnt condone Slavery.The problem in this short period after the beginning of the colonization of the new world was, that these Natives weren't the property of their lords, they had to be paid for their work. And this prohibited that they would be treated decent. It was forbidden to punish them but the estate owners did not care much about these laws.
Do you even realise that, by FSE logic, you aren't capable of producing either a valid argument or a right answer, because of your previous post about Hitler? You should see this yourself, realise you don't have anything to gain, and do yourself a favour and make a tactical withdrawel, meanwhile doing us a huge favour and not bringing your favourite leader up. Ever again.
This is no intended hostility, this is me doing you a favour.
Learn from it.[close]
Sorry Commissar Emu. I meant no offense. Purge who you will.SpoilerHis favorite leader can be Hitler and I don't think that was argued that much. It was mostly on the claim that socialism/communism are worse than fascism.Slaves lived relatively well under slave masters because they were their property, that however doesnt condone Slavery.The problem in this short period after the beginning of the colonization of the new world was, that these Natives weren't the property of their lords, they had to be paid for their work. And this prohibited that they would be treated decent. It was forbidden to punish them but the estate owners did not care much about these laws.
Do you even realise that, by FSE logic, you aren't capable of producing either a valid argument or a right answer, because of your previous post about Hitler? You should see this yourself, realise you don't have anything to gain, and do yourself a favour and make a tactical withdrawel, meanwhile doing us a huge favour and not bringing your favourite leader up. Ever again.
This is no intended hostility, this is me doing you a favour.
Learn from it.[close]
I Riddled him, you are fucking up my momentum.
Sorry Commissar Emu. I meant no offense. Purge who you will.SpoilerHis favorite leader can be Hitler and I don't think that was argued that much. It was mostly on the claim that socialism/communism are worse than fascism.Slaves lived relatively well under slave masters because they were their property, that however doesnt condone Slavery.The problem in this short period after the beginning of the colonization of the new world was, that these Natives weren't the property of their lords, they had to be paid for their work. And this prohibited that they would be treated decent. It was forbidden to punish them but the estate owners did not care much about these laws.
Do you even realise that, by FSE logic, you aren't capable of producing either a valid argument or a right answer, because of your previous post about Hitler? You should see this yourself, realise you don't have anything to gain, and do yourself a favour and make a tactical withdrawel, meanwhile doing us a huge favour and not bringing your favourite leader up. Ever again.
This is no intended hostility, this is me doing you a favour.
Learn from it.[close]
I Riddled him, you are fucking up my momentum.
:DFavourite all time leader= Gaz
I have to say this so I don't get demoted
If you think Jeljer will be amused by this you have another thing coming also why no #GamerkiethSwag ?
However Malakoth clrly best line Cpt EU. Dat video made me laught when I saw panos still as a Sgt.
Well, my favourite leader of all time is Hitler as well and the fact that I am German may cause a much bigger flamewar than there has been a few posts ago.Do you not remember this post?
But the question was what the favourite leader would be and my favourite leader is the (in my opinion) best leader. So yeah, Hitler was an an amazingly good leader.SpoilerAnd socialism/communism is much worse than fascism, btw. :P[close]
I talked about colonialism and native Americans in this post. I don't exactly know what this has to do with Hitler.
Well, my favourite leader of all time is Hitler as well and the fact that I am German may cause a much bigger flamewar than there has been a few posts ago.
But the question was what the favourite leader would be and my favourite leader is the (in my opinion) best leader. So yeah, Hitler was an an amazingly good leader.SpoilerAnd socialism/communism is much worse than fascism, btw. :P[close]
I believe the first time he quoted you was a mistake?
The Peoples Will of the Emu. Don't be a tyrant now. I mean, you're a dictator. But of the bird ProleteriatI believe the first time he quoted you was a mistake?
I don't make mistakes, it is the will of the Emu
The Peoples Will of the Emu. Don't be a tyrant now. I mean, you're a dictator. But of the bird ProleteriatI believe the first time he quoted you was a mistake?
I don't make mistakes, it is the will of the Emu
The Peoples Will of the Emu. Don't be a tyrant now. I mean, you're a dictator. But of the bird ProleteriatI believe the first time he quoted you was a mistake?
I don't make mistakes, it is the will of the Emu
Hmm, you are right, we must employ our collective feathers.
Louis Montcalm and La FayetteAlso leader of the French National Guard during the early days of the French Revolution and the guy who added Bourbon white to what is now the tricolor
Greate leader for the French Army in North America
Harry S. Truman. dropped bombs on Japs and just didn't give a fuck+1
Definitely Vercingetorix. Ceaser conquered a load of land and was unstoppable and vercingetorix started a rebellion and almost defeated him, when i say almost its coz they ran and hid when it started to rain in the defining battle(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffr4yannickw10.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FFrance_Vercingetorix.jpg%2F93348094%2FFrance_Vercingetorix.jpg&hash=d085612df96984e7e2b9f02764662e4f210a96df)Meh.
Alexander the Great because you cannot compare him.
I sense a biasI'm blind
You can just as easily smell the kiebalsaI sense a biasI'm blind
It's very potent you're rightYou can just as easily smell the kiebalsaI sense a biasI'm blind
8. Djengis Khan - Made the biggest empire ever in history, nuff said. (Nearly forgot this guy)
Napoleon BonaparteComplicated leader. I'd say he's one of my favorite to study and look at.
Alexander the Great because taking over the Persian Empire but I think he could of taken a good half of the world if he didn't die at such a young age.well he got pretty fucked up in India
Alexander the Great because taking over the Persian Empire but I think he could of taken a good half of the world if he didn't die at such a young age.well he got pretty fucked up in India
Presides that, it kinda sucks that he died at the age of 32. :-\
India was generally pretty feared for invading as mountains surrounded it, and didn't Hannibal lose most of his army walking all the way around Spain towards Rome?Alexander the Great because taking over the Persian Empire but I think he could of taken a good half of the world if he didn't die at such a young age.well he got pretty fucked up in India
was mainly his generals in India. And Alexander was a much better conqueror than ruler imo, still good at both however.
Hannibal used Indian elephant riders using the Punic wars, it is quoted somewhere hehe
India was generally pretty feared for invading as mountains surrounded it, and didn't Hannibal lose most of his army walking all the way around Spain towards Rome?Alexander the Great because taking over the Persian Empire but I think he could of taken a good half of the world if he didn't die at such a young age.well he got pretty fucked up in India
was mainly his generals in India. And Alexander was a much better conqueror than ruler imo, still good at both however.
Hannibal used Indian elephant riders using the Punic wars, it is quoted somewhere hehe
I've heard that Napoleon wasn't a great military leader and that his generals did a lot of the leading for him.
I've heard that Napoleon wasn't a great military leader and that his generals did a lot of the leading for him.
You've heard wrong tbh
Austerlitz alone was a stroke of pure military genius. He was also what I would describe as a "complete commander" - by which I mean not only was he a master of battlefield tactics, but a masterful strategist/campaigner and an inspirational leader as well. Always maneuvering into advantageous positions, dividing allied opponents attempting to join forces and routing them each in detail, encircling entire armies (case in point being the Ulm Campaign), etc.
He became almost lazy as he got older and started using more direct tactics (arguably losing some of his genius) but even in the Hundred Days days campaign he frustrated Wellington with his movements ("Napoleon has humbugged me, by God; he has gained twenty-four hours' march on me").
oh coolI've heard that Napoleon wasn't a great military leader and that his generals did a lot of the leading for him.
You've heard wrong tbh
Austerlitz alone was a stroke of pure military genius. He was also what I would describe as a "complete commander" - by which I mean not only was he a master of battlefield tactics, but a masterful strategist/campaigner and an inspirational leader as well. Always maneuvering into advantageous positions, dividing allied opponents attempting to join forces and routing them each in detail, encircling entire armies (case in point being the Ulm Campaign), etc.
He became almost lazy as he got older and started using more direct tactics (arguably losing some of his genius) but even in the Hundred Days days campaign he frustrated Wellington with his movements ("Napoleon has humbugged me, by God; he has gained twenty-four hours' march on me").
Napoleon Bonaparte is the best for 1 reason. He made an army capable of fighting Wellington in under 100 days. An impressive achievement for any leader.Organizational skills alone don't make you a great leader
He was great strategist, a sound tactician and a good leader. But, he was also a pretty damned good politician. Then again, you don't make it beyond Colonel without being one. He made General at an impossibly early age.I agree.
irish
oh coolI've heard that Napoleon wasn't a great military leader and that his generals did a lot of the leading for him.
You've heard wrong tbh
Austerlitz alone was a stroke of pure military genius. He was also what I would describe as a "complete commander" - by which I mean not only was he a master of battlefield tactics, but a masterful strategist/campaigner and an inspirational leader as well. Always maneuvering into advantageous positions, dividing allied opponents attempting to join forces and routing them each in detail, encircling entire armies (case in point being the Ulm Campaign), etc.
He became almost lazy as he got older and started using more direct tactics (arguably losing some of his genius) but even in the Hundred Days days campaign he frustrated Wellington with his movements ("Napoleon has humbugged me, by God; he has gained twenty-four hours' march on me").Napoleon Bonaparte is the best for 1 reason. He made an army capable of fighting Wellington in under 100 days. An impressive achievement for any leader.Organizational skills alone don't make you a great leader
PrideOfNi ''Dezza''
My all time favourite leader, especially because of his tactical geniusness and his ability to know when to STREIF. To enforce discipline and tell people to BEHAVE. But his greatest ability and what makes him so unique, has to be his ability to AHU and all of his men know the way of AHU, this can ofcourse only be PrideOfNi, the man is the ultimate leader in every possible way, and after all, a gentleman.
Tactics
Discipline
AHU
amen
He owned slaves but it's okay because he was kind to them
That makes it okay then.He owned slaves but it's okay because he was kind to them
I didn't say it was okay. Let's not start using modern lenses now, it was considered normal in that time period. If you are going to target slave owners, then you are including people such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, America's founding fathers.
That makes it okay then.He owned slaves but it's okay because he was kind to them
I didn't say it was okay. Let's not start using modern lenses now, it was considered normal in that time period. If you are going to target slave owners, then you are including people such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, America's founding fathers.
But seriously that kind of makes him a dick
Okay they're all dicks. Just cos something was normal at the time that doesn't make it okay. I mean slavery had already been outlawed in much of the world by this point anyway. You might admire his military career but don't try and make him seem like a nice guy by painting owning slaves in a good light.you're fookin daft lad
Okay they're all dicks. Just cos something was normal at the time that doesn't make it okay. I mean slavery had already been outlawed in much of the world by this point anyway. You might admire his military career but don't try and make him seem like a nice guy by painting owning slaves in a good light.you're fookin daft lad
Zeljko Raznatovic know as Arkanbanned from fse
Adolf Hitler
Slobodan Milosevic
Ratko Mladic
Ceca
I've heard that Napoleon wasn't a great military leader and that his generals did a lot of the leading for him.
You've heard wrong tbh
Austerlitz alone was a stroke of pure military genius. He was also what I would describe as a "complete commander" - by which I mean not only was he a master of battlefield tactics, but a masterful strategist/campaigner and an inspirational leader as well. Always maneuvering into advantageous positions, dividing allied opponents attempting to join forces and routing them each in detail, encircling entire armies (case in point being the Ulm Campaign), etc.
He became almost lazy as he got older and started using more direct tactics (arguably losing some of his genius) but even in the Hundred Days days campaign he frustrated Wellington with his movements ("Napoleon has humbugged me, by God; he has gained twenty-four hours' march on me").
Napoleon is truly a god for the things he accomplished. By far my favorite leader.
I think Adolf Hitler was a great leader
I don’t think he was being serious mateMaybe he wasn't but there are people on here who legit think it.
I think Adolf Hitler was a great leader
Gaius Julius Caesar
Napoleon Bonaparte
Leonidas I
Arthur Wellesley
Alexander The Great
Kenshin Uesugi
Horatio Nelson
gican't agree with this one
very based
Ian Smith
Phil Jagielka
I think Adolf Hitler was a great leader
Zeljko Raznatovic know as Arkan
Adolf Hitler
Slobodan Milosevic
Ratko Mladic
Ceca
proidofnoihot sex
and blitz
Nicholas Cannella is a great leader and he led North America to many victories including the battle's of Dallas 2019, Cologne 2019, Los Angeles 2019, and Chicago 2019. Of course none of those victories would of been possible without one of his generals Jacky Yip making many decisive choices mid-battle. Finally with the rear admiral Keith Jordan Markovic, and his officers Russel David Kevin Van Dulken and Jonathan David Jablonowski, they had a grand slam victory, winning 4 major battles within a few months.
Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin
(https://c.tenor.com/8EN3Cezf7KcAAAAd/yes.gif)Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin