Telegraph: George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

[JMS]

I say Hitler. Without the US Britain would have been conquered.

US was the arsinal for the UK, and we gave significant aid to the USSR too.

But I would argue it would have been a larger blow to the war effort had Hittler avoided the war with the USSR, than the US or UK.

Stalin lost 20 million souls... Half of them from his military; while germany lost 4.2 million 3.7 million military... United States lost 400,000 just about all military ( including in the Pacific).

UK lost 390,000 souls about 60k civilians ( including in the Pacific )..

There just is no comparison and no doubt that Stalin and the Russians did the heavy lifting in that war. They ground the Germans up and we piled on.... It was really their war, which we were assisting in.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

UK lost 390,000 souls

Souls? Are we suddenly back in the Victorian Era?

Because that would be cool.

[JMS]

But apparently it's all down to Hitler that the Germans lost.

Well it all came down to Hittler that Germany was even in the war. The entire war was his brain child. To go further Hittler likely get's credit for the early sucesses of WWII and the amaizing attack and collapse of France; the largest most powerful european nation on the eve of WWII.

Of coarse you are also correct, Hittler made many costly mistakes too. Off the top of my head.

1. Allowing the British Army to escape at Dunkirk was huge.
   
2. Not invading Britain and taking her out when he had her on her knees after Dunkirk.
   
3. Openning up the second front with Russia. Operation Babarosa!
   
4. Changing the focus of the attacks on Britian to population centers and away from RAF targets during the Battle of Britain.
   
5. Allowing the 6th Army under Friedrich Paulus to be encircled and ordering them not to fight it's way clear in Stalingrad... 600,000 men paid the price for AH's mistake there thinking he could resupply them from the air.
   
6. In the lead up to D-Day endorsing both Rommel's defense plans and von Rundstedt's was another a classic mistake. He split up his resources such that neither defense strategy really had much of a chance, and then of course he denied both his strongest units his tank corps which were held under his personal command...
   
7. His "Final Solution" also competed for war materials and manpower with his war effort and was a huge costly mistake in prosecuting the war.
   

I would argue Hittler never really had a very good chance after 1941. The Brits and Russians were numerically as much or more than Hittler could handle on their own; when you added the industrial and population might of the US to that mix the writing was on the wall. Hittler would have needed regular miracles to face down Britian, The US, and the Soviet Union; while occupying France. It was just impossible even if Hittler was the perfect leader, and Hittler was far from the Perfect leader.

[No_Pressure]

If you're purely talking about a military commander then the best one the British ever faced was Erwin Rommel. The Afrika Korps was an under-powered force which was ill equipped to do much of anything. In spite of that Rommel drove the British to the brink of destruction before he ran out of fuel once and for all. The British gained the initiative, sure but with a 2:1 advantage in manpower and machinery.

As for the second world war in general, I think that Heinz Guderian's "Panzer Leader" gives perfect insight into what really happened caused the demise of Germany.

[Predicto]

If you're purely talking about a military commander then the best one the British ever faced was Erwin Rommel. The Afrika Korps was an under-powered force which was ill equipped to do much of anything. In spite of that Rommel drove the British to the brink of destruction before he ran out of fuel once and for all. The British gained the initiative, sure but with a 2:1 advantage in manpower and machinery.

Rommel was excellent, but there were several excellent generals in WWII. Von Manstein, Guderian, Zhukov, Patton, all of them can claim to be up there with Rommel in their own way.

On the other hand, there really was only one Napoleon. He was way ahead of the curve on all aspects of war (for his time). Rapid troop movement, orchestrated coordination of forces, flanking, tactical artillery, etc. combined with charismatic leadership. He rewrote the treatises on battle in a way that no one else has done since ancient times. It was only when everyone else in Europe started copying his tactics that they had a chance to beat him, even when they greatly outnumbered him.

[JMS]

If you're purely talking about a military commander then the best one the British ever faced was Erwin Rommel. The Afrika Korps was an under-powered force which was ill equipped to do much of anything. In spite of that Rommel drove the British to the brink of destruction before he ran out of fuel once and for all. The British gained the initiative, sure but with a 2:1 advantage in manpower and machinery.

Romel lost ... And I guarantee you Rommel better equipped than George Washington. At Valley Forge Washington's troops didn't even have socks and they never had enough muskets.. Rommel's troops were only ill equiped when the US started infusing Mongomery with overwhelming gear....

As for the second world war in general, I think that Heinz Guderian's "Panzer Leader" gives perfect insight into what really happened caused the demise of Germany.

Not familiar with it.

---------- Post added April-18th-2012 at 02:38 PM ----------

Rommel was excellent, but there were several excellent generals in WWII. Von Manstein, Guderian, Zhukov, Patton, all of them can claim to be up there with Rommel in their own way.

Agreed, but Rommel was Germanies most accomplished general against the Brits... Although I'm confident given the right cercomstances that Patton would have taken a whack at them too, especially if Mongomery was leading the Brits..

On the other hand, there really was only one Napoleon. He was way ahead of the curve on all aspects of war (for his time). Rapid troop movement, orchestrated coordination of forces, flanking, tactical artillery, etc. combined with charismatic leadership. He rewrote the treatises on battle in a way that no one else has done since ancient times. It was only when everyone else in Europe started copying his tactics that they had a chance to beat him, even when they greatly outnumbered him.

Again I agree Napoleon was in a class by himself... but he did have most of his victories against other nations, not the British. The British actually did pretty well against Napoleon... Nelson destroyed his fleet at Alexandria forcing his retreat from Egypt and again destroyed his invasion fleet at Trafalgar... then Wellington at Waterloo .... Napolean's greatest victories came against other nations not the Brits....

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Well it all came down to Hittler that Germany was even in the war.

Someday, someone is going to explain the spelling thing to me. It's remarkable. Anyway....

The entire war was his brain child. To go further Hittler likely get's credit for the early sucesses of WWII and the amaizing attack and collapse of France; the largest most powerful european nation on the eve of WWII.

I don't like this view of history. I tend to support the view that WWII was really just the continuation of WWI. German designs for an imperial empire had never really gone away. Hitler just placed those dreams in a terrifying new context. And it's not like he invented the idea of Blitzkrieg; he just embraced it.

As for France, I also tend to embrace the idea that France "lost" WWI but just happened to be allied with the victors. The French Army in 1940 was formidable in size but extraordinarily weak in terms of experience, modern equipment, tactics, and spirit.

[JMS]

I don't like this view of history. I tend to support the view that WWII was really just the continuation of WWI. German designs for an imperial empire had never really gone away. Hitler just placed those dreams in a terrifying new context. And it's not like he invented the idea of Blitzkrieg; he just embraced it.

The continuation of WWI interrupted by 20 years and a formal armistice. A continuation by (Hitler) a military dictator who hated the aristocracy in Germany' date=' usurped power and prosecuted a war of aggression largely based upon a policy of racial purity verses the policies of a hereditary monarchy who was drawn into a war it didn't anticipate due to secret alliances they failed to predict.

Actually you are entirely wrong. WWII might have had it's origins for Germany in WWI, namely the unfair and punitive nature of the Paris peace document; but the wars were fought by different German leadership, for entirely different reasons, different ideology and with different desired outcomes.

As for France, I also tend to embrace the idea that France "lost" WWI but just happened to be allied with the victors. The French Army in 1940 was formidable in size but extraordinarily weak in terms of experience, modern equipment, tactics, and spirit.

Unfortunately for your point, France is identified in the armistice papers as one of the victors in WWI, and WWII.

As for France in 1940 was "extraordinarily weak in terms of experience, modern equipment, tactics and spirit"... I would say you were 25% correct. They were weak in only tactics. General Gamelin was France's biggest handicap. The french officers were as experienced as the Germans, as they were the ones who fought the Germans in the war where Germany got all it's experience WWI. Frances Maginot line, and their Char B1 tanks were comparable maybe even superior to Germany'siegfried line and Panzer tanks. Overall France had one of the largest and most capable tank forces in existence in 1940. The Germans obviously understood tactically how to use them better massing them, using them offensively rather than defensively, and in conjunction with mechanized infantry..

Likewise the french spirit was high prior to getting smashed by the superior German tactics.

France was overrun by the Germans but it had a formidable tank force. In 1940 they had one of the largest tank forces in the world along with the Soviet, British and German forces. Like the British and the Soviets, the French believed in a strict division of labour between cavalry tanks and infantry tanks.

The French Army preferred to fight a defensive battle and built tanks accordingly. But there were some instances when some of the French tanks were able to slug it out with the German tanks and get the better of it, sometimes spectacularly so as when on 16 May a single Char B1 French heavy tank, the Eure, frontally attacked and destroyed thirteen German tanks lying in ambush in Stonne, all of them Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs, in the course of a few minutes.[1] The tank safely returning despite being hit 140 times (this event is not trackable in German documents and relies on the statements of the crew[citation needed]). Similarly, in his book Panzer Leader, Heinz Guderian relates the following incident, which took place during a tank battle south of Juniville: "While the tank battle was in progress, I attempted, in vain, to destroy a Char B with a captured 47 mm anti-tank gun; all the shells I fired at it simply bounced harmlessly off its thick armor. Our 37 mm and 20 mm guns were equally ineffective against this adversary. As a result, we inevitably suffered sadly heavy casualties".

The total tank assets in France and its colonies were therefore perhaps less than 5802 during the time of the German offensive. After the armistice in the unoccupied Free Zone of France a clandestine rebuild took place of 225 GMC Trucks into armoured cars. When all of France was occupied in 1942 the secret hiding places (caves in fact) were betrayed to the Germans.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_II#France

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

See, the old LKB would get sucked into this and would spend the next five days reading really long posts filled with misspellings and harping on the most obscure differences.

I'm a new man.

And George Washington was a badass!

USA! USA! USA!

(Also, the correct answer for all time is Isabella of France. That or Bubonic Plague).

[FrFan]

Strategy! Deciphering the "French model of failure"

"Refusal to change, intellectual comfort and a certain arrogance"

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Someday' date=' someone is going to explain the spelling thing to me. It's remarkable. Anyway....

I don't like this view of history. I tend to support the view that WWII was really just the continuation of WWI. German designs for an imperial empire had never really gone away. Hitler just placed those dreams in a terrifying new context. And it's not like he invented the idea of Blitzkrieg; he just embraced it.

As for France, I also tend to embrace the idea that France "lost" WWI but just happened to be allied with the victors. The French Army in 1940 was formidable in size but extraordinarily weak in terms of experience, modern equipment, tactics, and spirit.[/quote']

Yeah, JMS how the hell do you misspell Hitler? Seriously dude.

And I'm with you 100%. WWII was just a continuation of WWI, and the Cold War was a continuation of WWII. I've always explained it like this: WWI was the death of the old way, WWII was the fight for what would be the new way, the Cold War was the final battle for that new way.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

So who would be the greatest foe in US history?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

So who would be the greatest foe in US history?

Soviets/Viet Cong?

[HailGreen28]

Again I agree Napoleon was in a class by himself... but he did have most of his victories against other nations, not the British. The British actually did pretty well against Napoleon... Nelson destroyed his fleet at Alexandria forcing his retreat from Egypt and again destroyed his invasion fleet at Trafalgar... then Wellington at Waterloo .... Napolean's greatest victories came against other nations not the Brits....

Napoleon crushed British forces in Spain. Not his fault other French marshals couldn't do the same.

And Napoleon wasn't an admiral. Or had many decades to buildup, and raid and suppress other navies like the British did.

It's fair to say that Napoleon didn't have many victories against the British, because until the Hundred Days and Waterloo, the Brits had others fight instead of themselves. But he did have some victories. It's equally fair to say that Napoleon normally beat the British, except Waterloo where the Prussians helped the British.

---------- Post added April-18th-2012 at 07:10 PM ----------

Soviets/Viet Cong?

My vote is the Confederacy. We lost more lives, figuratively speaking half of us actually fought for slavery, and we suffered the most damage collectively, than any other time.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I meant individual. Same guidelines as the OP. Which invidual commander in the field was our greatest foe in history?

And sorry, but I don't consider Confederates "us". They weren't fighting for America. They were traitors. So with that said though, Lee or Jackson would definitely qualify.

[Predicto]

So who would be the greatest foe in US history?

Robert E. Lee, I think.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Speaking of Lee, I just got a new car and I've been looking at personalized plates. This might be my top seed

Problem is, I don't think I could ever drive past Manassas if I rocked it. I want to get it badly, my balls just aren't big enough.

[Henry]

Oh this thread is about to go straight to hell.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Oh this thread is about to go straight to hell.

Lol. I do what I can.

[JMS]

Yeah, JMS how the hell do you misspell Hitler? Seriously dude.

And I'm with you 100%. WWII was just a continuation of WWI, and the Cold War was a continuation of WWII. I've always explained it like this: WWI was the death of the old way, WWII was the fight for what would be the new way, the Cold War was the final battle for that new way.

I guess I don't understand your new logic..

WWI was a fight between monarchies in a war nobody ever anticipated but all got sucked into.

WWII was a war of conquest for an immoral ideology based upon racial purity where The US, UK, and USSR were all on one side.

The Cold War was between two allies from WWII, one of which didn't even fight in WWI.

How could anybody possible think they were continuations of each other, because they occured on land which overlapped?

By that logic French and Indian War, The American Revolution, War of 1812, The Nepolionic wars, and WWI were all continuations of each other cause they share the same overlapping geographic playing field. Just the reasons, actors, and desired results differ.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 03:04 PM ----------

Napoleon crushed British forces in Spain. Not his fault other French marshals couldn't do the same.

And Napoleon wasn't an admiral. Or had many decades to buildup, and raid and suppress other navies like the British did.

It's fair to say that Napoleon didn't have many victories against the British, because until the Hundred Days and Waterloo, the Brits had others fight instead of themselves. But he did have some victories. It's equally fair to say that Napoleon normally beat the British, except Waterloo where the Prussians helped the British..

All good points thanks for the well thought out response.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 03:10 PM ----------

Robert E. Lee, I think.

I can't think of anybody else who actually penetrated into CONUS like he did. You would have to go all the way back to the revolutionary war and maybe Cornwallis?

Although I won't count pre-constitutional enemies of the US.

[england]

See' date=' the old LKB would get sucked into this and would spend the next five days reading really long posts filled with misspellings and harping on the most obscure differences.

I'm a new man.

And George Washington was a badass!

USA! USA! USA!

(Also, the correct answer for all time is Isabella of France. That or Bubonic Plague).[/quote']

yes an english badass!

family from sulgrave england

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Cornwallis was kind of a fool. Elimintaing the Civil War because that's kind of hard to be into this context, I would say the toughest "foe" the US faced was Admiral Yamamoto. He was a legitimate military genius and could have ultimately done severe and lasting damage to the US. The worst case scenarios in the War in the Pacific were dramatically worse (from a US perspective) than the worst case scenarios of the War in Europe.

As for the argument that WWII is a continuation of WWII, it's pretty simple. The Armistace of WWI was ridiculously unfair to Germany and created the idea of national betrayal led directly to WWII. Hitler's entire philosophy was built on the betrayal of Germany in 1918 by traitors and Jewish subversives. He built the Nazi Party on the backs of suffering under the corrupt and incompetent Weimar Republic. The question that always needs to be answered is "How did a sophisticated, educated, fully Westernized country like Germany turn into what it turned into inside one generation. Jews had been more or less accepted in Germany for hundreds of years. They had lived as equal German citizens for nearly a century. What resentment was Hitler able to tap into that created a completely insane and ultimately suicidal state? The answer is the resentment of 1918.

JMS, why was Hitler's first move against the Sudetenland if not for reversing the humiliations of the Armistice?

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 02:54 PM ----------

PS...JMS, read a book called "Germany 1945." It goes into detail on how the way borders were drawn and how populations were moved after WWII was designed to avoid the problems of WWI. The Polish borders were pushed west and something crazy like 6 million Germans were forcefully removed from towns they had occupied for hundreds of years. The idea was that no future German leader could lead a war of "liberation" of Germans in other countries. There was also a lot of attention paid to whether borders could be defended or not.

Ultimately, none of that mattered because Germans of 1945 unlike those of 1918 knew that they had been defeated and were dealing with an occupation. There was very little resistance to the occupation (even in the Soviet and surprisingly brutal French zones) because no one was harboring a belief that they had been cheated or backstabbed.

[JMS]

Cornwallis was kind of a fool. Elimintaing the Civil War because that's kind of hard to be into this context' date=' I would say the toughest "foe" the US faced was Admiral Yamamoto. He was a legitimate military genius and could have ultimately done severe and lasting damage to the US. The worst case scenarios in the War in the Pacific were dramatically worse (from a US perspective) than the worst case scenarios of the War in Europe.

[/quote']

Yamamoto is a good one, especially if you are discounting the civil war. How about Vo Nguyen Giap? Yamamoto basically had one good sneak attack and then a nice six month run until we started kicking his tail. Vo Nguyen Giap was the leader of the north vietnamese forces which confronted the United States at the height of our cold war power ( 600,000 troops on the ground in 1967) and fought us to a stand still ultimately winning the military confrontation...

As for the argument that WWII is a continuation of WWII' date=' it's pretty simple. The Armistace of WWI was ridiculously unfair to Germany and created the idea of national betrayal led directly to WWII. Hitler's entire philosophy was built on the betrayal of Germany in 1918 by traitors and Jewish subversives. He built the Nazi Party on the backs of suffering under the corrupt and incompetent Weimar Republic. The question that always needs to be answered is "How did a sophisticated, educated, fully Westernized country like Germany turn into what it turned into inside one generation. Jews had been more or less accepted in Germany for hundreds of years. They had lived as equal German citizens for nearly a century. What resentment was Hitler able to tap into that created a completely insane and ultimately suicidal state? The answer is the resentment of 1918.

[/quote']

I don't disagree with your point. I do disagree with your logic. WWI was not fought over the terms of the paris peace treaty if you are saying that was the major reason WWII was fought then that's still not a continuation of WWI. I would say that the paris peace treaty was a major reason why the nazi's came to power but the motivation for the nazi's behind WWII went beyond getting even with France. It had to do with Hitler's racial superiority and the need to put the german race above all others. Remake the world and all that stuff.

I think the humiliation of the french was just a nice perk in his greater plan.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't disagree with your point. I do disagree with your logic. WWI was not fought over the terms of the paris peace treaty if you are saying that was the major reason WWII was fought then that's still not a continuation of WWII. I would say that the paris peace treaty was a major reason why the nazi's came to power but the motivation for the nazi's behind WWII.

Why do you get so so so so so so so so so so so so so so hung up on these narrow differences?

[Predicto]

I can't think of anybody else who actually penetrated into CONUS like he did. You would have to go all the way back to the revolutionary war and maybe Cornwallis?

Although I won't count pre-constitutional enemies of the US.

War of 1812, the Brits won a battle at Bladensberg MD, marched into DC and burned down the White House and the Capitol.

However, it wasn't as serious as it sounds - Washington DC was maybe the 6th or 7th most important city in the US at that time, and unless the Brits were able to subdue New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Charleston and New Orleans too, they weren't going to get anywhere.