Who is better general?

**~~Dogukan~~** · 04 Jul 06,, 02:09

Who would be the best general of history?

**Semper Fi** · 10 Jul 06,, 19:09

Hannibal Barca

If he would of beaten the Roman Empire the world would be alot different.

"Hannibal is at the Gates"

And why is Hitler in the list instead of Zhukov, Rommel or Patton?

**Dreadnought** · 10 Jul 06,, 20:02

Originally Posted by Semper Fi

Hannibal Barca

If he would of beaten the Roman Empire the world would be alot different.

"Hannibal is at the Gates"

And why is Hitler in the list instead of Zhukov, Rommel or Patton?

Good question

**HistoricalDavid** · 10 Jul 06,, 20:03

Adolf Hitler?

General?

Me have eye malfunction?

**gunnut** · 10 Jul 06,, 21:49

Don't let the fancy uniform fool you. Adolf was a corporal.

**HistoricalDavid** · 10 Jul 06,, 21:54

Originally Posted by gunnut

Don't let the fancy uniform fool you. Adolf was a corporal.

And a brave one at that, but his military thinking was often infamously disastrous.

**leib10** · 10 Jul 06,, 21:57

The Germans might have actually had a chance if they didn't have him meddling in the Wehrmacht's affairs.

**troung** · 11 Jul 06,, 02:44

Yeap the loss of WW-2 was of course all Hitlers fault...

**Blademaster** · 11 Jul 06,, 04:45

There was no way in hell that Germany was going to win the war once US got into the picture even before Dec. 7, 1941. US was actively arming Britain to the teeth. Hell, Canada was arming Britain to the teeth. With US in the picture, US was arming Soviet Union to the teeth. And Germany could not even restrict the flow of arms to Britain and Soviet Union with the Battle of Atlantic campaigns. In short, once Germany invaded Poland, the war was going to be a fight to the death, a bitter and long struggle on the same terms such as WWI, Civil War, Crusades, and the Punic Wars.

Ironically, If Germany had waited until USSR attacked Poland, Germany would have been on the same side as Britain and France. Britain and France hated communists more than fascists and they would have been willing to let Germany take Poland back to beat back the Soviets. But Hitler was too stupid to realise that. Hitler's invasion of Poland was the equivalent strategic blunder as Japan's Pearl Harbor attack.

**gunnut** · 11 Jul 06,, 07:39

The Arsenal of Democracy. By war's end, the US accounted for more than half of the globe's GDP. American shipping had to scale back because we were making more ships than we needed.

There's no way Japan and Germany can win a war of attrition against the US.

**IDonT** · 11 Jul 06,, 13:59

Genghis Khan - No one has conquered more in their life times.
Where are his two best generals Jebe and Subotai?
That poll should be renamed who is the most popular general.

Before Genghis Khan

Mongol Empire at his death

**leib10** · 11 Jul 06,, 19:25

Originally Posted by Blademaster

There was no way in hell that Germany was going to win the war once US got into the picture even before Dec. 7, 1941. US was actively arming Britain to the teeth. Hell, Canada was arming Britain to the teeth. With US in the picture, US was arming Soviet Union to the teeth. And Germany could not even restrict the flow of arms to Britain and Soviet Union with the Battle of Atlantic campaigns. In short, once Germany invaded Poland, the war was going to be a fight to the death, a bitter and long struggle on the same terms such as WWI, Civil War, Crusades, and the Punic Wars.

Ironically, If Germany had waited until USSR attacked Poland, Germany would have been on the same side as Britain and France. Britain and France hated communists more than fascists and they would have been willing to let Germany take Poland back to beat back the Soviets. But Hitler was too stupid to realise that. Hitler's invasion of Poland was the equivalent strategic blunder as Japan's Pearl Harbor attack.

When I said they had a chance, I mean that they could've avoided the complete destruction of their country. With their invasion of the USSR any hopes for even a favorable peace were shattered. It divided the Wehrmacht and it took far more losses on the Eastern Front than it did on the Western Front.

Due to lack of a large navy, it's even debatable if they could've defeated Britain. Unless an effective blockade could've stopped the flow of supplies from America, the British would've kept on fighting, especially with a man like Churchill at the head (whom I admire enormously).

**Triple C** · 13 Jul 06,, 12:34

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

The Germans might have actually had a chance if they didn't have him meddling in the Wehrmacht's affairs.

Without Hitler the Germans wouldn't try at world conquest either. The pre-NSDAP German army was rather apolitical and their most ambitious objectives were pretty modest compared to Hitlerian standards.

**leib10** · 17 Jul 06,, 01:16

Exactly what I meant.

**Canmoore** · 17 Jul 06,, 21:19

I say ceasar... Ceasar is to Europe and North and South America, as what Ghengis Kan is to Asia.

The remnants of the roman empire would later create the English, French, Italian, Spanish cultures, and Latin would be the base of those languages..

The roman empire also created alot of things in society, such as addresses that are still in use today