NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is it?

Patton *cough cough*. He can control weather.

on a more serious note.. Probably Monty. Patton had some divine intervention and godlike luck behind him. But in war, thats always the case.

Chiang Kai-shek, Draza Mihailovich, or Stanislaw Mikolajczyk

Marshal C.G.E Mannerheim. The one who led the army of Finland and also worked as the president during the second war with the Soviets.
Think of it: the soviet army was 6 times bigger but Finland was never invaded. He really must've had been the greatest leader during WWII.

Allthough not a comander or leader. Hans Ulrich Rudel. The highest decorated tank ace/pilot of the war. The only man to ever recieve the Knights Cross with Golden Oakleaves, Swords and Diamonds. A medal created just for him.

What about Charles de Gaulle? Monty, though.

General Douglas MacArthur

Marshal C.G.E Mannerheim. The one who led the army of Finland and also worked as the president during the second war with the Soviets.
Think of it: the soviet army was 6 times bigger but Finland was never invaded. He really must've had been the greatest leader during WWII.

Yes! Mannerheim!
(I'm a little surprised someone beat me to it, though)

Air Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding.

As an American, I have to say Churchill. FDR was good, but he didn't nave nearly the problems to deal with that Winston did.

Churchill. I need not say any more.

Harry Hopkins.

Seriously, has to be Churchill.

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill

I don't get it, what was so great about Churchill? He was a drunken idiot.
He just loved a good war, had plenty of chances to get Britain out of it but no he sent your grandfathers and/or great-grandfathers to their deaths, oh and lets not forgett the Galipolli fiasco, who do you think was the 'mastermind' of that?
He also had a great time making it harder for the Irish delegation to get a better deal then they got, Churchill could be blamed for the Northern Ireland situation in a way. Totally useless in peace time.

Roosevelt. Pulled a country out a severe depression, kept Britain in the war against the wishes of his countrymen, then kicked Nazi ass when we got in.

General Rommel was the best leader

I don't get it, what was so great about Churchill? He was a drunken idiot.
He just loved a good war, had plenty of chances to get Britain out of it but no he sent your grandfathers and/or great-grandfathers to their deaths, oh and lets not forgett the Galipolli fiasco, who do you think was the 'mastermind' of that?
He also had a great time making it harder for the Irish delegation to get a better deal then they got, Churchill could be blamed for the Northern Ireland situation in a way. Totally useless in peace time.

Churchill was out of power during the 30s, he foresaw but was unable to prevent the rise of Nazi Germany.

What makes him the greatest Englishman ever was that when everyone else in the entire world believed that all of Europe had gone down to defeat, Churchill convinced England to keep fighting. Hopeless though it seemed. Had England capitulated to Nazi Germany in 1940, there is no doubt that the Axis would have won the war. (By that I mean also finished Russia off).

Now, do you really want a world where 2/3 of the Earths surface ends up being run by the Nazi party.

No one is great in war, therefore, no one.

Now, do you really want a world where 2/3 of the Earths surface ends up being run by the Nazi party.
No but I sure as hell don't thank Churchill for that.

Churchill, because he inspired a small island nation to fight the good fight, and by God we fought. I mean, other leaders were good, but the man was incredible. Less good in peacetime, but you need different people for different conditions.

No but I sure as hell don't thank Churchill for that.

Yeah, well if there was no Churchill, that's what would have happened.

Accidentaly voted for FDR, wanted to vote for Churchill.
Read this:
A woman approaches a tipsy Winston Churchill:
She says, "Mr. Churchill, you are drunk."
He replies, "Yes I am. And you, madam are ugly. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." :D

I am stuck between Winston and Roosevelt
but as an american i can't help but lean to roosevelt

I reckon Winston. He managed to keep Britain going through the darkest hours of the war.

*smirk* i was voter 42

I don't get it, what was so great about Churchill? He was a drunken idiot.
He just loved a good war, had plenty of chances to get Britain out of it but no he sent your grandfathers and/or great-grandfathers to their deaths...Someone had to fight the Nazis. It has also traditionally been in Britain's interest to keep the Continent balanced. Obviously staying out of it didn't work for Chamberlain.

totally useless in peace time.Well, it's a good thing we're talking about the finest WWII leader, and not the finest leader before or after WWII.

General Rommel was the best leaderHe had great tanks and knew how to use them. Whoop-dee-doo. He really didn't have much beyond a military talent.

Churchill, because he inspired a small island nation to fight the good fight, and by God we fought.

A 'small island nation'? You are forgetting the Empire. Anybody care to try and dig up some figures for the Indian population circa 1939?

Definitely Churchill, without him Britain would have fallen.
But, the best military leader was definitely Field Marshal Montgomery.

Patton.

But of the choices, Churchill.

Manstein, a wizard of armour and infantry,

No one is great in war, therefore, no one.

This is the world's smallest violin playing just for you.

Allthough not a comander or leader. Hans Ulrich Rudel. The highest decorated tank ace/pilot of the war. The only man to ever recieve the Knights Cross with Golden Oakleaves, Swords and Diamonds. A medal created just for him.

i agree. some of the things he did were simply unbelievable. michael wittman and erich hartmann where also incredible soldiers.


Now, do you really want a world where 2/3 of the Earths surface ends up being run by the Nazi party.

now where exactly did that stat come from?

Russia, Europe and Africa would probably make up nearly that

The problem is, are we talking about military leaders or political ones?

If we're talking political leaders, I'd go with Churchill for his ability to inspire, although I do not like him in the least and his military abilities were doubtful.

The best military leader was in my oppinion Manstein. I know that usually people only tend to know about the Generals of their own country, but along with Yamamoto that's propably the most able commander IMO.

Yeah, well if there was no Churchill, that's what would have happened.
Sure. :rolleyes:
Military officers had nothing to do with the victory, right?
America won the war not Churchill and if you want to credit one man for the victory over the Nazis then you better credit FDR.
American weapons of war, soldiers and officers saved your and the worlds ass not Churchill.

I don't get it, what was so great about Churchill? He was a drunken idiot.
He just loved a good war, had plenty of chances to get Britain out of it but no he sent your grandfathers and/or great-grandfathers to their deaths, oh and lets not forgett the Galipolli fiasco, who do you think was the 'mastermind' of that?
He also had a great time making it harder for the Irish delegation to get a better deal then they got, Churchill could be blamed for the Northern Ireland situation in a way. Totally useless in peace time.


because he was british...very british in fact...one of his sayings was
"we shall fight to the last australian"

it would be difficult to explaint to a foreigner what it is about churchill...that makes him truly a fine historical leader...you say he loved a good war...that sums the entire british nation up really..the fact he was pissed only magnified his brilliance

Sure. :rolleyes:
Military officers had nothing to do with the victory, right?
America won the war not Churchill and if you want to credit one man for the victory over the Nazis then you better credit FDR.
American weapons of war, soldiers and officers saved your and the worlds ass not Churchill.


i thought we had established this in a previouse thread..

america CONTRIBUTED..it did not save any one...i am sure that you hold this veiw and i shall not wish to argue but if you go around saying things like this...it wont do you any favours..
churchill kept the entire britich system running, without the british system hitler would have had britian..even if he didnt overlord would have been impossible without the canadians and british forces...in short churchil may not have been single handedly responsible but definatly a key component..

General George S. Patton Jr.

(but I voted Churchill)

General George S. Patton Jr.

(but I voted Churchill)

by far one of my favorite generals
old blood and guts patton

i thought we had established this in a previouse thread..

america CONTRIBUTED..it did not save any one...i am sure that you hold this veiw and i shall not wish to argue but if you go around saying things like this...it wont do you any favours..
churchill kept the entire britich system running, without the british system hitler would have had britian..even if he didnt overlord would have been impossible without the canadians and british forces...in short churchil may not have been single handedly responsible but definatly a key component..
A great leader to his people he was but for you to go around saying that he won the war isnt going to do you any favours either.
Lets just say that you have your view and I have mine and let that be the end of it.

" if you go around saying things like this...it wont do you any favours..#
Why? Are the Britiswh going to gang up on me. :rolleyes:

A great leader to his people he was but for you to go around saying that he won the war isnt going to do you any favours either.
Lets just say that you have your view and I have mine and let that be the end of it.

" if you go around saying things like this...it wont do you any favours..#
Why? Are the Britiswh going to gang up on me. :rolleyes:

if you read my post i clearly say that churchill did not win the war, that he was a component of allied victory...and as for the british ganging up on you..well..i dont know..but surely just posting offesive articles can not be a very good thing can it?

Did you know during the war Britain declared war on Finland because Finland declared war on the USSR. They never did anything, obvious but it was a gesture to the Russia. It is the only time officially in world history that one d4emocracy has declared war on another. I heard that but I don't know if its true.

Manstein, Rommel, Monty and Churchill.

Patton was the worst military leader, and Roosevelt were a terrible leader paying more attention to saving his own butt than doing the right thing.

Omar Bradley on the other hand, got to admire him

Manstein, Rommel, Monty and Churchill.

Patton was the worst military leader, and Roosevelt were a terrible leader paying more attention to saving his own butt than doing the right thing.

Omar Bradley on the other hand, got to admire him

monty is one of my heroes..as is chusrchill and patton..patton because..like monty..he was incredably arrogant.
and indeed omar bradly must be admired

Government Leader: I picked Churchill

As for military leader: Patton. He far outdid Monty and gained more ground than anyother unit in the history of WWII.

Government Leader: I picked Churchill

As for military leader: Patton. He far outdid Monty and gained more ground than anyother unit in the history of WWII.

patton and monty..there is a bok about them somewhare..allwell..
patton was said, at the time , to be the U.S monty

Churchill. He saw the evil of the Nazis before anyone else, and inspired his people to stand up against a tyrannical enemy.

Not to mention his command of the english language, both in speech and writing. His recollection of the war, the six-volume "The second world war" actually won him the Nobel Prize in literature.

patton and monty..there is a bok about them somewhare..allwell..
patton was said, at the time , to be the U.S monty

I can believe it but Patton was the complete opposite of Monty. Monty fought with finesse and Patton went for the jugglar.

I can believe it but Patton was the complete opposite of Monty. Monty fought with finesse and Patton went for the jugglar.

ah yes but as pre-maddonas and in arrogance they were kinsmen..

anyway i must be off..bye Corneliu and good evening

if you read my post i clearly say that churchill did not win the war, that he was a component of allied victory...and as for the british ganging up on you..well..i dont know..but surely just posting offesive articles can not be a very good thing can it?

I did not mean YOU as in YOU E Blackadder but a fellow national of yours here, I should have been clear on that in my post, I apologize.
In regards to you, or any other British national, finding my post offensive in some way I do not apologize for it is my oppinion that Churchill was a very flawd man and deserves litle credit when it comes to the ultimate vicotry of the Allies over the Nazi regime.
Casting empty threats is not a good idea, if you open youre eyes you will see that General is full of real "offensive" threads and comments, you just have to rise above it.
If you can not take it why are you here?

ah yes but as pre-maddonas and in arrogance they were kinsmen..

anyway i must be off..bye Corneliu and good evening

Agreed and take care

Russia, Europe and Africa would probably make up nearly that

so you're saying that Europe, Africa and the U.S.S.R. cover(ed) 2/3 of the planets surface? interesting...

also where did anyone get the idea the Germany wanted ALL of Africa AND Europe AND a huge chunk of Asia?

so you're saying that Europe, Africa and the U.S.S.R. cover(ed) 2/3 of the planets surface? interesting...

also where did anyone get the idea the Germany wanted ALL of Africa AND Europe AND a huge chunk of Asia?


Given that the oceans make up 2/3 of the world's surface, and Europe, Africa and the USSR also allegedly make up 2/3 of the world's surface, we appear to have 4/3 of the world's surface accounted for without looking at the Americas, Antarctica, and the remainder of Australasia...

Churchill. He held our country together until the USSR could mount a serious assault against Nazi Germany.

I don't think the other political leaders can even begin to compare, except perhaps Hitler, only he was able to mobilise his country in such a way. However, his motives were evil.

Government Leader: I picked Churchill

As for military leader: Patton. He far outdid Monty and gained more ground than anyother unit in the history of WWII.

Monty was infinetly superior as a Tactician. Made far, far more of what he had to work with. Patton was a basher, just like U.S Grant. That's not tactics.

I'd have to say none actually, all of the countries failed miserably.
The Brits gave the Germans too much space prior to war when the Germans started to rebuild their army, when they militarized Rheinland and when they invaded Austria and Sudetenland.
The French never really posed a threat and Vichy France was a joke.
Italy couldn't even take Greece without German help, so they're out as well.
The Germans made a critical error by attacking the Soviet Union, and the Soviets made the mistake by signing a non-agression pact with Germany as they could conquer Europe if they only weren't so naive.
America waited too long and was stuck in isolationism before the Japanese wanted too take a little bit too much.
They all failed.

They all failed.

Except the Swiss?

Except the Swiss?Naah, I hate neutrals :D

Monty was infinetly superior as a Tactician. Made far, far more of what he had to work with. Patton was a basher, just like U.S Grant. That's not tactics.

I'd say Patton.

A skilled field commander and tactician, he was the Allied general the Germans feared above all others.

Patton :

Unlike Monty, Patton backed up his PR skills with clear direction on how his soldiers should work, behave, dress, perform, etc. He led in tactics as well as operational strategy, but did it without micromanaging. And I guess the thing with Patton is to appreciate him, you have to accept his limitations, and argue that he should only have been placed in command in situations that suited his talents. The advance across France and his performance at the Ardennes were obviously these cases, and his tactics in breakthrough and pursuit in open, tank/tactical air-friendly environments exactly the right situations. He took risks, which were sometimes worth taking in certain conditions but not in others.

Montgomery:

I appreciate the attempt at revisionism on Market-Garden. Healthy revisionist skepticism to attack conventional wisdom in strategic thinking should always be encouraged (see Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War" for one fascinating example).

But, let's pretend that Monty really was furious, and the push to Arnhem went ahead. To be honest, in this case, I can't buy the idea that it would have made all the difference it was designed to. Given the geography and the state of Allied supply lines at the time, even a successful assault on the Arnhem bridge by XXX corps would have been tough to exploit with any speed.

First, if the Arnhem Bridge had been held, the advance units of XXX corps would still have had to get through the city and the burgeoning defenses beyond to be effective. Given that Arnhem was a shambles, and that large panzer forces with high morale were in the way, this is no small issue. And more importantly, German forces on the flanks of the Eindhoven-Arnhem highway were stronger than anticipated. There were several points throughout the campaign where German forces were able to pierce and disrupt the passage of supplies and reinforcements along the "airborne carpet," limiting the ability to sustain any advance beyond the Rhine however successful the advance was. To quote Michael Caine playing Vandeluer in A Bridge too Far," "It was the single road."

It would be too much to describe Monty as a complete fool, or an idiot or an SOB. These were tough jobs. But "Saving Private Ryan" put it perfectly. Monty was "overratted." Winning a set piece battle isn't much use if all you've won is another opportunity to fight a set-piece battle ten miles down the road. Sad to see him get the laurels instead of other, more talented British thinkers who might have pulled off Caen, Alamein, Tunisia and the breakout with fewer casualties

Politics:Peter Fraser
Military:Bernard Freyberg