Round 3-Modern Bracket

[Kalle]

Thats your line of defence? lol

If you know your history you know Kirst has done exactly what I said, captured the essence of the character of prussian militarism. Since you like that militarism so much no wonder you take cheap shots to defend it.

What is the revisionism? Nothing in what I said is revisionistic. Point it out please.

Was the attacks on Poland, Norway, Denmark, Benelux and Russia admirable? Highly effective they might have been but not very fitting for noble and gentle men, but very fitting for unmoral unscroupulus bastards of which there were many among the Prussian officercorp.

Was the permittence of the authrocities admirable? The only ones with any real power to stop it were the spineless armycommanders and they did nada to stop it for the most part.

Kalle

[King Henry V]

History is one long story of noble and gentle men attacking other countries, no matter how small or large. The question is not who was the most honourable general, but who was the greatest in his profession: that of defeating his enemy as quickly and as easily as possible, and in that, these German generals excelled.

Prussian militarism may well be criticised from our comfy modern point of view, but it was through its devotion to the armed forces that Prussia managed to unite Germany and prevent it from continuing to be Europe's battleground as it had been for the past two centuries.

[Strike For The South]

Wheres Patton?

[King Kurt]

Wheres Patton?

Well to the rear, polishing his pearl handled revolvers and working out how to blame his latest mistake on Monty. For a change, he might pop out and knock a shell shocked soldier about.

[PanzerJaeger]

Thats your line of defence? lol

Line of defence? These men need no defence. Their actions speak louder than your revisionist- supported by fiction(lol) - words.

Heres a little perspective. How many of the generals in the above poll knew of and approved the attempted assassination of Hitler?

If you're honestly suggesting that the German military in 1939 should have subverted a popularly elected and supported government, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature and role of the military. Talk about revisionism.........

[Kalle]

Line of defence? These men need no defence. Their actions speak louder than your revisionist- supported by fiction(lol) - words.

Heres a little perspective. How many of the generals in the above poll knew of and approved the attempted assassination of Hitler?

If you're honestly suggesting that the German military in 1939 should have subverted a popularly elected and supported government, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature and role of the military. Talk about revisionism.........

This clearly shows you do not admire these men only for their "achievements" in the field. They are indeed great men to you.

Again you have nothing to come up with. Shirer is fiction?? He had a uniqe insight in what went on and to various sources, documents, correspondence, interviews, being on the spot where things happened and so on and his description of the generals does not make them look very good with a possible exeption here or there.

You also contradict yourself, you think the generals are good both because you claim they supported the attempted assassination (did they support it because the war was going bad? ) and aswell for the support of the populary elected and supported government . Pick one thing of those to praise please not both. Also read up on the methods the nazis used to gain power please...

Where did I mention 1939, they could do it sooner or later, I dont care when. Resign from your position and refuse to command your troops in aggresive wars of conquest. The ways of protest are many and does not necesserely mean rebellion. If you think that the role of an individual is blind justice towards people with higher ranking whatever they order you then you clearly have no idea, or at least a very evil idea, about most things I must say. If your boss or president or commanding officer tells you to shoot a few civilians, jump off a bridge start an aggressive war of conquest, participate in genocide or whatever resembles those scenarios.. would you do it? Ask yourself that question come back with an answer. Not your silly lols. Go read Kirst if you dare.

I can also add a comment here to that other debate regarding Hitler and Alexander where you try to spread your dark propaganda.

The evil that went on in nazigermany was far worse then any evil Alexander could come up with and most others also.

No other state has put the entire machinery and resources of an industrialized modern nation in the work of extermination. Calculated and planned and executed with the highest of effeciency. Its not factories to make cars, its factories to produce death. Show me Alexanders factories of death please. Or show me his mobile einsatztruppen operating behind the front (with the armycommanders approval or it would not be possible) killing civilians (mostly jews of course) as there only task. Shooting or with gas or whatever. Show me Alexanders einsatztruppen.

You dont need to bother with an answer, instead keep your admiration for the killers to yourself, especially since all you can come up with is ... fiction lololol.

Im not the only one that noticed your dark nature, I remember at old .net you were in trouble aswell.

Also look up the word revisionism, you will see I am not the one revisionistic here.

Kalle

[PanzerJaeger]

This clearly shows you do not admire these men only for their "achievements" in the field. They are indeed great men to you.

Some of them were, some of them weren't. (Model)

You also contradict yourself, you think the generals are good both because you claim they supported the attempted assassination (did they support it because the war was going bad? ) and aswell for the support of the populary elected and supported government . Pick one thing of those to praise please not both. Also read up on the methods the nazis used to gain power please...

Do you have any concept of time? It makes perfect sense that the military, any military, would not have gone against a popularly elected and supported government. Skip ahead 5 years and the true nature of Hitler and the Nazi politicos was quite a bit more clear. Again, if you truly believe that the High Command and the German military should, or could, have subverted Hitler when the war started, you have a lot to learn about the nature of the military of the period; not only in Germany but around the world. I did not contradict myself, but you surely did...

Where did I mention 1939, they could do it sooner or later, I dont care when.

Didn’t you just finish saying 1944 was too late? Lol, read what you write, it helps.

Resign from your position and refuse to command your troops in aggresive wars of conquest. The ways of protest are many and does not necesserely mean rebellion.

You obviously do not understand how things worked in Nazi Germany. You might want to learn a bit about Rommel's final days.

If you think that the role of an individual is blind justice towards people with higher ranking whatever they order you then you clearly have no idea, or at least a very evil idea, about most things I must say. If your boss or president or commanding officer tells you to shoot a few civilians, jump off a bridge start an aggressive war of conquest, participate in genocide or whatever resembles those scenarios.. would you do it? Ask yourself that question come back with an answer.

Are we talking about concentration camp commandants or German field generals? In any event, if you think the choices were that stark and that easy, your conception of the situation on the ground and the reality of it do not match up in the slightest.

I can also add a comment here to that other debate regarding Hitler and Alexander where you try to spread your dark propaganda.

Dark propaganda? Can you say "drama queen" lool

The evil that went on in nazigermany was far worse then any evil Alexander could come up with and most others also.

Are you sure? Is it worse to kill innocent civilians by gas or by the sword? Slaughter is slaughter?

No other state has put the entire machinery and resources of an industrialized modern nation in the work of extermination. Calculated and planned and executed with the highest of effeciency. Its not factories to make cars, its factories to produce death. Show me Alexanders factories of death please.

First show me Alexander's factories of.... anything!? Revision, much?

Alexander destroyed entire cities. He showed that he was fully capable of destroying "civilians" when it suited him.

You dont need to bother with an answer, instead keep your admiration for the killers to yourself, especially since all you can come up with is ... fiction lololol.

Such an imbecilic post demanded a response. Try harder?

Im not the only one that noticed your dark nature, I remember at old .net you were in trouble aswell.

MTW is a dead game. There’s no reason to hold a grudge over your rather lackluster performance against me all this time. We're two generations away... let it go.

[Randarkmaan]

First of I'd like to say that even if many of these men were involved in a plot to kill Hitler it does not make them "honourable anti-nazis". You have to remember that German officers were professional they did all of this of their own personal will, and probably were pretty aware and indifferent of what Hitler was doing inside Germany and the zones occupied, their motivation was likely not nazism it self, but rather the promise of a strong Germany, which was something the nazi leadership wanted to achieve (so they shared this in common), their later opposition to Hitler was most likely not opposition to his policies of extermination and oppression, but because of his constant (and often catastrophical) interference in their job, which undermined their dream of a strong Germany.

Also to show that opposition to a tyrant does not imply righteousness, you could just take a look at Lavrentij Berija, a Georgian who was once head of NKVD and also administered the Soviet nuclear project. Towards the latter years of Stalin's rule he came to resent Stalin and also envisaged himself succeeding Stalin and liberalizing the Soviet Union (opening the market, granting amnesty to certain political prisoners and to liberate much of Eastern Europe). Yet this man was one of the cruelest and most ruthless men in the service of Stalin, once unleashed he had millions arrested, many of whom he tortured and killed personally together with a small band of very scary Georgians. In addition he was also a rapist who used to have young girls arrested and force them to have sex with him so that they might live (or not be sent of to the GULags).
Opposition to a horrible tyrant does not mean a person is a righteous honourable man.

Personally I don't know who I would have voted for if I still could, the only ones I really know are Rommel and Zhukov (I just read "the court of the Red Tsar", so that's the reason I also brought of Berija), I don't have the same knowledge of Mannstein and Guderian.

Zhukov was a very successful leader once he was allowed to operate without Stalin trying to demonstrate his "military capability"(Stalin was a brilliant organizer, but he held a rather outdated view on many military matters). He was also very ruthless and his style was often brutal and primitive, with little regard for his soldiers' lives, but they were none the less brutally effective once he got it to work. Percentage-wise he usually had far fewer casualties than many of Soviet contemporaries also, and in the later years of the war his troops inflicted appauling casualties on the Germans without losing that many themselves.

Rommel was also very good, he performed very well in North Africa even though the resources and supplies he received were often inadequate or not present at all. He was also very popular with his men and he was also held in awe by his enemies, but in the end once he was beaten he did not manage to turn it around again.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Was the attacks on Poland, Norway, Denmark, Benelux and Russia admirable? Highly effective they might have been but not very fitting for noble and gentle men, but very fitting for unmoral unscroupulus bastards of which there were many among the Prussian officercorp.

That's almost amusing. Using the words you used on Panzer earlier:

If you know your history...

...you would notice that these attacks were ordered by a Hitler and Nazi Party who generally shunned and looked down upon the Prussian officers. The officers in question simply did their duty in carrying these attacks out. Granted, there were exceptions among officers, such as Keitel, but among higher ranks especially, these were relatively rare. I would point you to Pierre Galante's book Operation Valkyrie: The German General's Plot Against Hitler (available in French or English), which will inform you that plots and anti-Hitler groups were formed as a cause of these invasions among the officer corps. This clearly states that these groups were being formed as early as 1938 and 1940, when the prologue to the war and the war itself were going very well for Germany.

Sorry, but I have to bring this up:

No other state has put the entire machinery and resources of an industrialized modern nation in the work of extermination. Calculated and planned and executed with the highest of effeciency.

Stalin and Mao both gave it a shot. Of course, the direct aim wasn't mass murder, but they both knew perfectly well it was going to happen, so there's another two states for you.

Or show me his mobile einsatztruppen operating behind the front

Stalin had those too; they were called commissars.

History is one long story of noble and gentle men attacking other countries, no matter how small or large. The question is not who was the most honourable general, but who was the greatest in his profession: that of defeating his enemy as quickly and as easily as possible, and in that, these German generals excelled.

Prussian militarism may well be criticised from our comfy modern point of view, but it was through its devotion to the armed forces that Prussia managed to unite Germany and prevent it from continuing to be Europe's battleground as it had been for the past two centuries.

That is probably the most sensible thing I've read all day. I don't see why we're arguing when we all have officers in our history who can be classified as "good" or "bad", depending on your viewpoint.

[Marquis of Roland]

I guess Kalle isn't a fan of Ghengis Khan either lololol.

I'm not going to argue whether or not these military leaders were noble men of moral standing. In determining whether or not these people were great generals, I'm only going to look at how effective their strategy/tactics were, and how good their opponents were.

Being a "good guy" has nothing to do with being a great general, but some people have it in their heads that the "good guys" should always get the best generals (and better quality troops in smaller numbers than the "bad guys", and/or worse off in the supply department than the "bad guys". This gives us, the "good guys" a sense of heroism by defeating a "superior force" by outsmarting or outfighting them, whereas if it was the other way around with the good guys with the numerical superiority, its just not what our society deems as "heroic" and therefore not worth mentioning/celebrating.)

There is no such thing as playing "fair" in war. If you win, you win, if you lose, you lose. Two parties can come together and "agree" on a set code of conduct (such as concepts of chivalry and honor), but there are NO RULES. You see these first-world countries these days calling guerilla fighters and terrorists "cowards" and challenging them to a "fair fight".

When one side has massive overwhelming superiority in 1 form of combat, and the other side has only basic resources, challenging the worse off opponent to "your game" and advertising it as a "fair fight" is just plain bitching. Expecting your opponent to stand out in the open while your superior resources blast them out of existence is plain stupidity. If a guy has to sneak around and stab you in the back to kill you, well hey, who's left standing in the end to complain?

If you as a nation have either the choice to fight "dirty" and have a chance to win or cease to exist, which one would you pick? War is a nasty business, concepts of honor and chivalry make it more palatable to our society.

Even if Manstein or Rommel wiped whole nations of people off the face of the Earth by massacre, it still wouldn't change the fact that they were better quality military leaders than arguably anyone on the allied side.

Ghengis Khan DID wipe whole kingdoms off the face of the Earth, and look who's leading the medieval bracket LOL.

Hell, I'd say Zhukov deserves to be on this list over other allied generals of other nations purely because he fought on the Eastern Front against better quality opposition.

I think Kalle has mistaken this poll for "Who's the best nice guy of all time?". I vote Gandhi