Topic: Largest army ever commanded by one man? 2

UBIQUE · October 16th, 2005

Quote:

Hitler, in a way, transends being a political figure because he went into detail and changed even small details in plans.

Every Lance Corporals dream to chest poke and correct a General

MightyMacbeth · October 16th, 2005

strange..

u only call Stalin a political figure? well, he named himself Genarilissimo for a reason..but I mean still, he had the power..

Charge 7 · October 16th, 2005

Stalin did indeed take direct command of troops just as Hitler did. MacBeth is correct also in that he did name himself a "generalisimo" so that he would have a higher rank than his marshals. Unlike, Hitler, however, he was wise enough to eventually realize that he had no talent for military command and surrended direct control to his marshals.

Whispering Death · October 16th, 2005

2 things.

1) The U.S. President is Commander in Chief, effectively he is the highest general in the Army. Do you think he qualifies as a commander as far as this discussion is concerned? I don't, I think presidents are mostly just politicians who make some broad decisions and leave the actual commanding to the generals like Eisenhower and Schwatzkopff.

So I guess to answer this question you have to answer what do you mean by "commanded by one man"? Who is a commander and who is not? Is it the guy at the top of the food chain (almost always a politician) or is it the commander who ACTUALLY does the real commanding?

2) Charge - This isn't a referendum on whether Stalin was a good millitary commander or not.

The truth about the russian army is that the fighting was largely left up to the theater commanders while Stalin drew the lines so to where each general could go.

MightyMacbeth · October 16th, 2005

but the commanders u mean whispering death, also follow he commands of the top, ex Bush or Stalin..

This depends on the topic starter

Charge 7 · October 17th, 2005

Uh, Whispering, I hardly thought it was a referendum on whether Stalin was a good millitary commander or not. I was pointing out that he did indeed command troops but gave that up. Evidently you didn't care for that or you wouldn't have made that comment.

Whispering Death · October 17th, 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charge 7

Uh, Whispering, I hardly thought it was a referendum on whether Stalin was a good millitary commander or not. I was pointing out that he did indeed command troops but gave that up. Evidently you didn't care for that or you wouldn't have made that comment.

That's cool, it just came off as 'defensive' when I was reading it.

"unlike Hitler he was wise enough..."

That sounded to me a lot more like a judgement call on hitler vs. stalin command styles than it did a step towards determining who commanded the largest army.

Charge 7 · October 17th, 2005

What exactly would I have been defending? It was merely a comment.

Whispering Death · October 17th, 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charge 7

What exactly would I have been defending? It was merely a comment.

Stalin!

...

...

Charge are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

MightyMacbeth · October 17th, 2005

lol, take it easy dudes..thats not what the topic starter wanted.. Besides, it was just a comment, a thought given by charge whispering..

October 16th, 2005	Post 12
MightyMacbeth ICBM Gear	strange.. u only call Stalin a political figure? well, he named himself Genarilissimo for a reason..but I mean still, he had the power.. __________________ ~when a man does his best, what else is there? Gen.George S.Patton

October 16th, 2005	Post 13
Charge 7 Master Gunner	Stalin did indeed take direct command of troops just as Hitler did. MacBeth is correct also in that he did name himself a "generalisimo" so that he would have a higher rank than his marshals. Unlike, Hitler, however, he was wise enough to eventually realize that he had no talent for military command and surrended direct control to his marshals. __________________ "Do not forget your dogs of war, your big guns, which are the most-to-be respected arguments of the rights of kings." - Frederick the Great, King of Prussia

October 16th, 2005	Post 14
Whispering Death Tribuni Angusticlavii Gear	2 things. 1) The U.S. President is Commander in Chief, effectively he is the highest general in the Army. Do you think he qualifies as a commander as far as this discussion is concerned? I don't, I think presidents are mostly just politicians who make some broad decisions and leave the actual commanding to the generals like Eisenhower and Schwatzkopff. So I guess to answer this question you have to answer what do you mean by "commanded by one man"? Who is a commander and who is not? Is it the guy at the top of the food chain (almost always a politician) or is it the commander who ACTUALLY does the real commanding? 2) Charge - This isn't a referendum on whether Stalin was a good millitary commander or not. The truth about the russian army is that the fighting was largely left up to the theater commanders while Stalin drew the lines so to where each general could go.

October 16th, 2005	Post 15
MightyMacbeth ICBM Gear	but the commanders u mean whispering death, also follow he commands of the top, ex Bush or Stalin.. This depends on the topic starter

October 17th, 2005	Post 16
Charge 7 Master Gunner	Uh, Whispering, I hardly thought it was a referendum on whether Stalin was a good millitary commander or not. I was pointing out that he did indeed command troops but gave that up. Evidently you didn't care for that or you wouldn't have made that comment.

October 17th, 2005	Post 18
Charge 7 Master Gunner	What exactly would I have been defending? It was merely a comment.

October 17th, 2005	Post 20
MightyMacbeth ICBM Gear	lol, take it easy dudes..thats not what the topic starter wanted.. Besides, it was just a comment, a thought given by charge whispering..