So saw who was the best army thread etc and think well for an army to be effective they need a good leader for their units...
So in your opinion and why, who was the best General of WW2 (includes & Feldmarschals)
Personally: Konstantin Rokossovsky
Why: This guy played a major role in nearly all of the Soviet Offences and Defences on the Eastern front from Moskva, Stalingrad, Kursk, Smolensk and Warszaw this guy general had the technical ability to stop and attack the germans.
He had the bravery to tell Stalin what had to be done to get the victory and in all occasions he was correct and Stalin called him a saviour. Apart from that the Polish General was a massive conductor for the Soviet Armies and won countless battles and massively outthinked his German Counterparts
Please log in to post a reply.
or maybe cos he was one of the best generals of the Second world war...Quasi-duck wrote:
Ah yes, the German general elevated to heroic status simply because he did not commit war crimes. What a great idol......Pablo22510 wrote:
*cough cough Rommel*
I dunno maybe....
Hardly. The British are quite romantic and love to romanticize a foe.oceanhawk wrote:
or maybe cos he was one of the best generals of the Second world war...
Yea.. noQuasi-duck wrote:
Hardly. The British are quite romantic and love to romanticize a foe.oceanhawk wrote:
or maybe cos he was one of the best generals of the Second world war...
they just recognize that he was an good general..
I've heard an awful lot about how nice he was to POW's by not killing them more than how he lost control of all of North Africa, failed to obey orders in France and partied like it was 1999 on the night of D-Day.oceanhawk wrote:
they just recognize that he was an good general..
Whats wrong with treating your POW's with respect?Quasi-duck wrote:
I've heard an awful lot about how nice he was to POW's by not killing them more than how he lost control of all of North Africa, failed to obey orders in France and partied like it was 1999 on the night of D-Day.oceanhawk wrote:
they just recognize that he was an good general..
It is what you are renowned for amongst your peers.oceanhawk wrote:
Whats wrong with treating your POW's with respect?
its smarter moveQuasi-duck wrote:
It is what you are renowned for amongst your peers.oceanhawk wrote:
Whats wrong with treating your POW's with respect?
means that you enemy may be less likely to fight if moral is low, and they know they wont die if captured, they might lay down their arms...
and whats wrong with being known for Treating your POW's like a proper general
I heard about how kind to POW's before I heard of his operations. You know what this means? Amongst the general population, he is a reputation for being Mr. Nice Guy, not the armoured tactician. See the problem?oceanhawk wrote:
whats wrong with being known for Treating your POW's like a proper general
A warmonger renowned for being kind.....
yes I highly doubt because he treated his POW's with respectQuasi-duck wrote:
I heard about how kind to POW's before I heard of his operations. You know what this means? Amongst the general population, he is a reputation for being Mr. Nice Guy, not the armoured tactician. See the problem?oceanhawk wrote:
whats wrong with being known for Treating your POW's like a proper generalA warmonger renowned for being kind.....
combined with his previous reputation
doubt anyone thinks he is mr nice guy...
So you deny historical facts of his treatment of civilians and POW's?oceanhawk wrote:
doubt anyone thinks he is mr nice guy...
what?Quasi-duck wrote:
So you deny historical facts of his treatment of civilians and POW's?oceanhawk wrote:
doubt anyone thinks he is mr nice guy...
no I said he had a reputation of being good to his POW's
Exactly, known for kindness, not tactics, you just said it yourself!oceanhawk wrote:
I said he had a reputation of being good to his POW's
where the hell did I say that?Quasi-duck wrote:
Exactly, known for kindness, not tactics, you just said it yourself!oceanhawk wrote:
I said he had a reputation of being good to his POW's
He was the 2nd best general in the war, and so much better than every Russian general there is..
there is nothing wrong with not killing your prisinors.. its actually a better idea..
but I wouldnt take on board, your RL military tactics or even your CoW tactical knowledge
Because he didn't commit war crimes, more than we can say for 90% of Germans at the time, and because he greatly helped in France, and because was at a whisker's length from getting North Africa, and hence winning the war.Quasi-duck wrote:
Ah yes, the German general elevated to heroic status simply because he did not commit war crimes. What a great idol......Pablo22510 wrote:
*cough cough Rommel*
Well, I ain't British, and although I'm in a British school, the history textbook doesn't even mention Rommel, so...Quasi-duck wrote:
Hardly. The British are quite romantic and love to romanticize a foe.oceanhawk wrote:
or maybe cos he was one of the best generals of the Second world war...
Interesting...Quasi-duck wrote:
Anyways, you're wrong, but you refuse to accept it, so I will do, uh, nothing? I dunno. At least this was a good point racket @Maximilien
[/img]
Just saying...
Not A Communist wrote:
Just saying...
Patton>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TrumpNot A Communist wrote:
Just saying...
It is a conspiracy.Pablo22510 wrote:
Patton>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trump
Errr, no?Maximilien wrote:
It is a conspiracy.Pablo22510 wrote:
Patton>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trump
Please log in to post a reply.
