I personally hate Hitler for obvious reasons, but what other idiots should i know about?

Every single WWI commander....
Bunch of bloody butchers, no respect for their profession.

I personally hate Hitler for obvious reasons, but what other idiots should i know about?

First off Im not sure Hitler should be classified as a military commander. Secondly is it because of him just being the villian he was or because you disagree with the Reichs stradegy?

Thise question is preety vague but Im gonna go with the Roman Emperor Valens, who vastly underestimated the Huns at Adrianople, and basically lead to the complete collapse of the Roman Army.

The French WW2 commanders had to be pretty dense to allow their country to be crushed in two weeks by the same plan that got them overtaken last war. They would be my least favorite. And Hitler would be a military commander because he was the one who decided how and when to attack. His power was similar to Eisenhower's on the Allied side. And this is my personal opinion but from a military standpoint he did a pretty good job at almost taking over the world. Just a few logistical errors and underestimating the Americans was what doomed him.

just has to be the union general burnside. After his last great mess, lincoln commented "well he managed to snatch one last defeat from the jaws of victory"

Originally Posted by Darkmb101

I personally hate Hitler for obvious reasons, but what other idiots should i know about?

Ok you may hate hitler for what he did to the jewish people, but if it wasn't for him we may not have all the medical advancements that we have today thanks to The Angel of Death, Josef Mengele, the infamous doctor of Auschwitz. If hi tler wouldn't of ran his death camps we may still have diseases that had no cure. Hitler gave mengele specimens to work on. Also a lot of the german society todaymay love hitler, not because of his beleifs such as the arian nation, but because he reformed the nation.

Whoa there, stud. This is one case where the ends definitely do not justify the means, and what EXACTLY did these evil men do to benefit society in any way shape or form that could not have been done without committing atrocities like they did?


By the same line of reasoning, one could claim that the lack of assistance of the British to Ireland during the potatoe blight helped them by preventing overpopulation, or the same argument for the Russians under Stalin during his purges.

Bernard Montgomery possibly...you can't argue with success I suppose, but he seemed to be pompous and annoying.

George Pickett was a nincompoop, General "Beast" Butler was another.

Bernard Montgomery is my choice.....

and Hitler was C in C of the armed forces.

Originally Posted by diplomatic_means

The French WW2 commanders had to be pretty dense to allow their country to be crushed in two weeks by the same plan that got them overtaken last war. They would be my least favorite. And Hitler would be a military commander because he was the one who decided how and when to attack. His power was similar to Eisenhower's on the Allied side. And this is my personal opinion but from a military standpoint he did a pretty good job at almost taking over the world. Just a few logistical errors and underestimating the Americans was what doomed him.

Actually, it was not the same plan, had it been the same plan, the Germans would have met the BEF and the bulk of the French army head on in Belgium, according to the Dyle Plan.

Mansteins plan moved the main axis of advance to the Ardennes, and the rest is as they say, history.