Subject: Military commanders of merit.
Posted by: trojan11
Date: Jul 19 10
This is not a thread dedicated to the famous commanders of history. We all know of Napoleon, Alexander, Saladin, Rommel, Patton and so on. However, throughout history there have been many military commanders of note, but who have never really come into the public eye.
Does anyone have regard for an unsung hero of the past. The kind of commander that did well, sometimes brilliantly, but never reached the public's attention?
One of favourites is Gotthard Heinrici (generaloberst) of WW2. He was the man tasked by Hitler to prevent the Soviets from crossing the Oder. Heinrici's efforts to defend Berlin border upon near genius, I think. He also quite successfully defied Hitler and his cronies.
Posted by: trojan11
Date: Jul 19 10
This is not a thread dedicated to the famous commanders of history. We all know of Napoleon, Alexander, Saladin, Rommel, Patton and so on. However, throughout history there have been many military commanders of note, but who have never really come into the public eye.
Does anyone have regard for an unsung hero of the past. The kind of commander that did well, sometimes brilliantly, but never reached the public's attention?
One of favourites is Gotthard Heinrici (generaloberst) of WW2. He was the man tasked by Hitler to prevent the Soviets from crossing the Oder. Heinrici's efforts to defend Berlin border upon near genius, I think. He also quite successfully defied Hitler and his cronies.
91 replies. On page 2 of 5 pages. 1 2 3 4 5
trojan11
|
N. Davout stands out from the general run of Napoleon's marshals. A fine commander, rarely spoken of, but possibly the equal of N himself, even in his glory days. Loyalty was a byword for Davout, an extremely talented commander. Reply #21. Feb 09 11, 7:45 PM |
evil44 
|
houston and boxjaw, WWI and WWII weren't very popular with the homefront at the onset either, but through careful political posturing and media support, the American population quickly got behind the war efforts. Our purpose for both those wars was also quite nebulous, especially in WWII with our "Europe First" strategy but being brought into the war by Japan. The basic premise at the time was one of isolationism and not wanting to be sucked into European affairs. But when the media started glorifying the war, the tide shifted int he US (especially after Pearl Harbor). The American media never got on board with the "glorification" of war in Vietnam, and much of that was due to the graphic images that kept coming out of SE Asia and daily body counts...something that didn't get publicized about WWI and WWII until afterwards. Reply #22. Feb 25 11, 6:53 AM |
matthewpokemon
|
Marshall Georgi Zhukov General of the Armies John 'Black Jack' Pershing General Hans Guderian General Bernard Montgomery Reply #23. Feb 26 11, 11:32 PM |
boxjaw
|
evil44 I used to believe that the sinking of the Lusitania in the spring of 1915 had nothing to do with leading the U.S. into WWI. Yet after reading much on the subject, I changed my view. The Great War, as far as the United States entry had more to do with the blundering of Germany's reaction to the tragedy and the subsequent fallout between Bryan and Wilson and his advisors. The U.S. stance was always pro-British. All of the German liners in U.S. ports were interned at the outbreak of war, yet British ships could come and go. The media didn't really matter in the overall course that U.S. policy was heading toward. The U.S. entry into WWII also had nothing to do with the media. 7 December 1941 was cause enough. The Vietnam War as I posted before, had no real tangible goal. It was flawed policy from the beginning. All the media did was report it. Give kudos to Giap and his strategic forethought. The First Amendment is beautiful isn't it? Reply #24. Feb 27 11, 1:58 AM |
| euab
|
General Leonidas? I have only known him when I watched "300". Reply #25. Feb 27 11, 7:31 AM |
| trojan11
|
Hope you don't mind euab, but that's king Leonidas at Thermopylae 480BC. Reply #26. Feb 27 11, 7:04 PM |
| euab
|
thanks for the correction trojan11 I appreciate Reply #27. Feb 28 11, 6:01 AM |
REDVIKING57
|
boxjaw and evil44 Do you think the Zimmermann Telegram may have had some bearing on the United States entry into WW1? And the fact that Germany declared the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare against ALL Atlantic shipping,regardless of nationality,from February,1917? Some would say that,as in December 1941,the US didn't really have any choice. Reply #28. Feb 28 11, 8:06 AM |
| boxjaw
|
You are correct to bring up the Zimmermann telegram. Yet the messages that the Wilson administration sent to the German government after the Lusitania sinking led both countries to inevitable war. The resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare was also an indirect response to what was fast becoming an untenable situation in the Atlantic. The old rules of war on the high seas no longer applied, and could not be realized. Reply #29. Feb 28 11, 8:21 PM |
| evil44
|
The RMS Lusitania was sunk in 1915. The US didn't enter the wear until 1917. Up through 1916, the American homefront was still largely neutral (isolationist) even after the sinking of the Lusitania, which wasn't even a US ship (althrough it did have Americans on board). The Lafayette Escadrille was designed to get American support for the French (and British) by getting Americans involved in the fight in 1916. Also, Woodrow Wilson was still in diplomatic talks with Germany up through 1917 with the hope of staying out of the war. The Zimmermann Telegram was sort of the "straw that broke the camel's back", though; even with the anti-Mexican, anti-German, and anti-British segments of the US population. Reply #30. Mar 01 11, 7:10 AM |
| boxjaw
|
evil44 von Paulus was promoted to Field Marshal by Hitler before the imminent collapse of the 6th Army. This promotion was done to encourage von Paulus not to surrender to the Soviets and instead commit suicide. von Paulus wasn't a most capable commander. Real courage by the man would have been surrendering weeks before, rather than worrying what a "Bohemian Corporal" in Berlin was contemplating. Thousands more of his soldiers would have survived than what befell them. As far as von Paulus' speaking out against the Nazi regime while be a captive in the Soviet Union? Not much else he could do. Not a brave and courageous field commander in my book. The Field Marshal who tried but ultimately failed to relieve the 6th Army, was a vastly more capable and valiant commander of merit. Reply #31. Mar 04 11, 11:18 PM |
mountaingoat
|
Kesselring was pretty good. Churchill calling Italy the soft underbelly of Europe was a nonsense. Having mountains and rivers running across Italy gave the opportunity to set up some great defensive positions. Not putting an aggressive Officer in charge of Anzio was a mistake. (My father was there and not impressed.) The opposition can make you look better than you are sometimes. Reply #32. Oct 09 11, 6:04 AM |
| trojan11
|
Your last sentence makes an excellent point, mountaingoat. Which brings my mind to Marlborough. Was he really as good as they say he was - or was he just a moderately good commander facing very inferior opposition? Reply #33. Oct 14 11, 7:26 PM |
paulmallon
|
John Paul Jones Reply #34. Oct 17 11, 8:26 PM |
| trojan11
|
The Scotland has produced many fine commanders over the centuries, but really JPJ belongs more to the realm of Buccaneers, Pirates and such like. Reply #35. Oct 27 11, 2:35 PM |
| paulmallon
|
Sitting Bull Reply #36. Oct 31 11, 1:54 PM |
| trojan11
|
An excellent guerrilla leader by all accounts, with a sound tactical mind. As an overall commander? Inspirational to his people and a great driving force. Reply #37. Oct 31 11, 2:55 PM |
SisterSeagull
|
Two great military commanders spring to mind. Firstly, Lt Col 'H' Jones VC, late of the Devon and Dorsets who, as CO of 2 Para was killed in the action at Goose Green in the Falklands War on 28th May 1982 and secondly Lt Col Colin 'Mad Mitch' Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who led his battalion back into the Crater district of Aden in 1967. I once had the honour of meeting Colonel Mitchell at a regimental function and he was still a scary fellow! Reply #38. Oct 31 11, 3:02 PM |
| trojan11
|
Battalion level is fine. I hate to disagree with what is an obviously heartfelt opinion...but, 'H' might have done better to obey the known precepts of field military command. Charismatic, outstandingly brave, certainly. I do, though, disagree with your overall assessment of his abilities as a commander. 'Mad Mitch'. An object lesson in how not to treat a great soldier. His actions, harsh as they were 'perceived' to be, saved lives; not to mention the brilliance of execution of his own plans, and his remarkable courage in implementing them - against orders and policy of the time. A disgracefully ungrateful British government castigated and disowned him; and a vengefully jealous 'higher command' spat venom at one of their own because he had shown more guts and initiative than they could ever imagine. Reply #39. Oct 31 11, 7:45 PM |
mountaingoat
|
Major General Smedley Butler. Most decorated marine when he died in 1940, wrote "War is a Racket" criticising American Adventurism and as serving Wall Street. Reply #40. Feb 29 12, 5:30 AM |
91 replies. On page 2 of 5 pages. 1 2 3 4 5
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: