RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Arpig -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 4:29:42 PM)

Well yeah Rule...but we are discussing actual history, not mythology or fairy tales....but thanks for your input all the same.



Leiren -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 4:31:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grofast

may be germany would have had a chance if he had kept it a purly europian affair or had been sneakier and appealed to the wests hate of communism


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there's a wide chasm between Communism and Nazism.



mnottertail -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 4:33:41 PM)

OK,. good to go...we aint far apart on sentiment here L. But why should we fight a european war? They don't speak english, and frankly, Winston can hold on to the British empire.........

But you got snippy and did not acknowledge this: (same fucking sentiment, same fucking situation):
So, let us not be blind to our differences–but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.

JFK, June 1963.





Arpig -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 4:35:36 PM)

I'm sorry leirin,if I gave the impression I disagreed with your point. I agree completely,in fact I think that if the Germans hadn't declared war on the US in the wake of Pearl Harbour the US would have fought a totally separate war against Japan,and stood out of the European one...at least for a while.I suspect once their war fever was wound up that Roosevelt could have carried them into the war against Hitler as well.
You are right, Roosevelt did want in against Hitler from very early on,and he did everything in his power to do so...Lend/Lease and the escorting of convoys, and the patrolling for and reporting of German U-boats,the occupation of Iceland....he pushed the limits as far as he could,and crossed more than a few lines of questionable legality in his efforts to aid the UK.



Ianneil -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 5:02:06 PM)

The good generals did win, McArther, Montgomery, Zukov, Nelson, Marlborough, Grant........others got it right after exhausting all other possibilties!

It is the definition of a bad general that he looses, they can only be judged by their results. However talented Rommel may have appeared to be, he failed in North Africa and Normandy, as Santa Anna failed in Texas, Lee failed in the South and Napoleion & Von Paulus failed in Russia.

Its just that the loosers oft times appear more dashing and adventerious and the dull boreing one like Montgomery got their logistics right and tended to only fight battles they could win..ala The Art of Strategy.

I do plead guilty to generalization, NO PUN, but a good general is one that wins. 



Arpig -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 5:58:01 PM)

quote:

I do plead guilty to generalization, NO PUN, but a good general is one that wins. 
Granted, that is the ultimate determinant, but picture me this....What if Lee had the resources of the North behind him....what if  Napoleon had the wealth of Great Britain backing him....what if Rommel had the overwhelming air superiority that Montgomery did.....What if Guderian had the unlimited manpower resources of Zhukov to play with.....
What then?
The great generals were rarely beaten so much as they were worn out...they ran out of men to fight with. They ran out of ammunition and fuel. Even then they continued to beat their attackers more often than not, but their victories were irrelevant because the opposition just kept throwing more men and matériel at them. It is akin to having Joe Louis in his prime fighting an endless roster of boxers one after the other....it doesn't really matter how much better Louis is than each of his opponents, eventually he will lose.



NorthernGent -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 8:58:47 PM)

A few thoughts on WW1 Arpig:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

World War I

But what generalship there was, was with Germany. In the opening phase of the war, the swing through Belgium caught the Entente by surprise and came very close to defeating France



The Allies knew Germany would march through Belgium. Britain gave Germany an ultimatum to guarantee Belgian borders which the Germans refused (prior to the declaration of war).

Britain had a small professional army - 7 divisions to 96 German divisions - and the French were fighting a 19th century war for the first few months i.e. suicide attacks against heavy artillery (no army in the history of warfare has suffered the number of casualities the French did in the first two months of a war and ended up on the winning side save for the Soviets in WW2).

Yeah the Germans were stopped at the Marne by a combined French and British force - but considering what they were up against they should have pressed home their advantage.

They made some serious errors of judgement too. For example: Von Falkenhayn decided to smash the French at Verdun with it being a symbol of national pride for French. The aim was to 'bleed France white' and sap her strength. Verdun had the opposite effect: it roused Frenc patriotic spirit and sapped German resources. Fair enough the French didn't go on the offensive again until 1918 but nor did the Germans.

British popular history (and British WW1 poetry which was influenced by the elevated romantic diction of the victorians and edwardians) portrays the British generals as donkeys. This is not an accurate picture. In 1915 Britain realised she didn't have an army big enough to influence the war on land. She set about building one - asked for 100 thousand volunteers and had over a million within a few months - but it was felt this new army wouldn't be ready until 1917. Problem was that the French were under severe pressure at Verdun in 1916 and the British had no option but to mount an attack at the Somme in order to relieve Verdun - so an ill-prepared army made up of civilian volunteers  (cooks/clerks/gardeners/shop keepers) made some serious mistakes.

But the British/Aussies/Canadians learned fast and crucially learned how to use planes/tanks/heavy artillery in unison. It must be remembered that there was a lot of new technology in WW1 - so many the generals hadn't quite worked out how to get the best of out of it.

The most interesting thing is that the professional German army cracked before an army made up of civilians - they surrendered in huge numbers to the British and French in 1918 with many deserting on their way up to the front line.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

while in the East Hoffman’s brilliant plan allowed Hindenburg to defeat not one, but two numerically superior Russian armies at Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes.



You and I could have got a gang together to defeat the Russians Arpig. They were severely under-equipped: many in bare feet and without a weapon. I suppose they did do better against the Austrians - but neither the Austrians or Russians had the stomach for a protracted war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

In the West, once their drive on Paris had been halted (again by superior numbers), they carried out a brilliant defencive campaign that held off the Entente for 4 years.



Brilliant defensive campaign? They simply dug in and said: "this is ours now come and take it back". It was much easier to defend a position because the heavy artillery invariably could not smash well fortified trenches. So when the bombardment was over the Germans simply came out of their dug outs manned their positions and blitzed the advancing soldiers. Having said that - even though the defenders always had an advanatage - the Germans lost similar numbers of men to the British at the Somme.

When the roles were reversed and the Germans did mount an attack - which was rare - they came unstuck e.g. Verdun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

In 1918, they tried again, and using an entirely new organization and offensive theory (basically blitzkrieg carried out by infantry) and again came close to taking Paris. But as in 1914, superior numbers ground them to a halt.



It wasn't necessarily 'superior numbers' - the Germans stretched their line beyond what they could cope with.. Resources couldn't be brought up from the rear quick enough and reserves were exhausted. I think that is called flawed generalship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

The Entente offensive of 1918 was simply a general frontal assault all along the line by vastly superior numbers (thanks mostly to the large number of fresh American troops)



The Germans began surrendering in huge numbers in 1918: 40 thousand to the Americans; 350 thousand to the British and French - I think that tells you who made the biggest dent in the German Army. Plus when the Americans arrived they weren't much help because they made the exact same mistakes as the British and French. They refused to listen to experience - due to the US Army being determined to remain independent (orders given to General Pershing) - and wasted lives in the same manner as the French and British in 1914 and 1915.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

and technology in the form of large numbers of primitive tanks.



Tanks may have been primitive but by 1918 they were extremely effective. The British/Aussies/Canadians had worked out how to combine them with artillery and infantry and the Germans didn't have an answer to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

There was no originality or anything previously unknown in the generalship of the advancing Entente allies, they simply marched forward, accepting the losses, and overwhelmed the exhausted German armies.



Were you to look at the Somme in 1916 and Arras in 1917 you would see a massive difference in the British Army's use of the technology at its disposal. A combined British/Aussie/Canadian force made gains as a result of new tactics such as the creeping barrage.

I've never really understood why the German Army gets such a good write up. I mean - what have they ever done apart from end up on the losing side? Definitely over rated. 



philosophy -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 9:01:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leiren

Maybe it was his close ties with Churchill that prompted FDR to want to enter what had been a highly unpopular war until the bombing of Pearl Harbor?




...or maybe FDR saw the Nazis for what they were and knew that fighting them was the right thing to do, regardless of what his electorate thought.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 9:24:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

I do plead guilty to generalization, NO PUN, but a good general is one that wins. 
Granted, that is the ultimate determinant, but picture me this....What if Lee had the resources of the North behind him....what if  Napoleon had the wealth of Great Britain backing him....what if Rommel had the overwhelming air superiority that Montgomery did.....What if Guderian had the unlimited manpower resources of Zhukov to play with.....
What then?


In most of these cases, they would have fought different campaigns. Perhaps then we'd be talking about how brilliant Grant was in countering the superior forces that Lee kept hurling against him in massive frontal assaults. OK, not likely, because he was still Grant, but I think you get the point I'm trying to make - we know Lee as a superb, innovative tactician because that was what he had to be. We know Grant as a general who relied upon simple, brute force assaults because that was a technique that worked, and that he could afford to keep using. A good general is one who uses whatever resources he has available to him, in whatever circumstance he finds himself in, to achieve  a victory. If  their circumstances had been different, they would have fought different battles, and we'd remember them differently - in some cases, more favorably, and in other cases certainly less so.

As for Guderian, though - if Heinz Guderian had had Zhukov's resources, he'd have kept going all the way to Japan in one direction and London in the other. The man was a genius. If he'd had more to work with, we might all be speaking German today.



NorthernGent -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 9:29:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grofast

may be germany would have had a chance if he had kept it a purly europian affair or had been sneakier and appealed to the wests hate of communism



No chance. It was not in the Americans' interests to have one hostile power in control of Europe.

You may say that the Americans had no interest in defending the British Empire - and of course they didn't as they were preparing to dismantle it - but the British were an infinitely better bet for them because we had proven ourselves to not be hostile to the Americans. There were a number of potential flash points/colonial disputes between Britain and the US around the turn of the 20th century (when the British Empire was at its height and Britain's wealth was unsurpassed) but it was the British who gave ground because the government wasn't stupid enough to antagonise a nation with serious resources at its disposal.

The Germans on the otherhand were running round Russia with things not necessarily going their way and then decide to declare war on the United States. They really were stupid enough.



Arpig -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 9:31:12 PM)

very good points NG, but I did preface my bit on WW1 by saying there was a general lack of good generalship on all sides. It is true that the Anglo-French learned to make good use of tanks, and for years they were the world leaders in tank theory, in fact the German blitzkreig was based on the ideas of Liddell-Hart (who's book "on Strategy" is really good BTW).
My general thesis still remains though, the winning side won through attrition with frontal assaults rather than any sort of truly innovative tactics, yes they used tanks and airplanes effectively, but it was still a frontal assault unlike the German shocktroop tactics in their 1918 offensive. And I maintain that the German defensive through 1914-1918 was brilliant,they developped the tactic of holding their front lines thinnly with heavily occupied and prepared 2nd and 3rd lines whose guns were targetted on the front lines,so that when the Entente finally took the German front lines they were subject to a murderous fire and powerful counter-attack. The Germans did this so often and so effectively that although almost every Entente offensive gained the front lines, they were pretty much all beaten back in short order. There were exceptions of course, the Canadians at Vimy and Passchendale come readily to mind, mostly because they were drilled into us here for some reason. But even those great "victories" gained a few hundred yards and didn't seriously disrupt the German positions.

In the end it was the German army that was bled white, simply because the Entente had more men to throw into the battle. The Americans served a vital purpose, they provided a large number of fresh troops to throw at the Germans. The quality of the troops or their leadership was not terribly important, it was numbers that mattered, could you goon dying longer than the other guy could. In the end it was the Anglo-Franco-American (yes along with Aussies, New Zealanders, Canadians, Moroccans, Vietnamese, and God knows who all else as well) who could keep dying longer than the Germans could. Their army broke, partially due to the effects of the blockade, but mostly simply because they had reached the point the French reached in 1917, they could take no more, but unlike the French, they were being assaulted along the entire front and had no chance to recover...so they surrendered.

And as for the Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes campaign, sorry it was a brilliant plan brilliantly executed. The Russian armies at the outset of the war were not the poorly armed rabble they were in later years, they were crappy, but still armed and trained.




Arpig -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 9:34:39 PM)

quote:

but it was the British who gave ground because the government wasn't stupid enough to antagonise a nation with serious resources at its disposal.
You know, it seems that the Brits were the only ones who realized the potential power of the US, not just during the war, but long before that. I wonder why they saw it when so many other Europeans didn't.



GCXcess -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 9:38:46 PM)

Interesting thread, although I'll concede I've only had the time to scan through it.  Like many things I think it often depends on definition, definition, definition.  Some generals were brilliant on a tactical level but fared poorly on a strategic level.  It's often argued that generals of 'the winning side' weren't as good as their opposing equivalent, but that they only won 'because they had more manpower/resources/insert-excuse-here.  Point being that many generals won because of how they handled affairs 'off-field' as well as on it.  Think of a football coach who has great tactical plans on the pitch but, say, fails to let upper management know what other players he'd like them to aquire for his team.

Also bear in mind it's often the winning side that builds up the reputation of the opposition's generals (and their fighting machines) - it makes for a huge PR boost when their side still manages to beat them.  But that's yet another tangent I don't have time to scribble up.

So it depends on what you expect a general's role to be.  Alexander the Great may have been great on the battlefield, but it helped that he knew which battles he should fight, and even where to fight them..



NorthernGent -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 9:56:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

You know, it seems that the Brits were the only ones who realized the potential power of the US, not just during the war, but long before that. I wonder why they saw it when so many other Europeans didn't.



Not to be too contrary.....

At the turn of the 20th century many European statesmen aniticipated a shift in the centre of political gravity - away from Europe toward Washington and St Petersburg (the Russian economy saw rapid growth after the reforms of 1905/06).

The Germans themselves anticipated this shift and was one reason of many why they risked everything in WW1 - strike now before it's too late.

One thing is absolutely certain: Britain and Europe accelerated its decline through WW1. There's a famous quote from the British Prime Minister Edward Grey on the eve of war which goes something like: "the game is up; it's all over; the lamps have gone out all over Europe". Which basically meant that the period of unprecedented European prosperity prior to WW1 would be entirely savaged by the dislocation to commerce that a war involving huge armies and advanced technology would involve.

In terms of the Nazis declaring war on the US. They simply weren't fit to govern a nation. They didn't have the skills and expertise which is why they made decisions which were political suicide. They were an opportunistic rabble really who didn't know what they were doing.



Arpig -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 10:08:29 PM)

quote:

In terms of the Nazis declaring war on the US. They simply weren't fit to govern a nation. They didn't have the skills and expertise which is why they made decisions which were political suicide. They were an opportunistic rabble really who didn't know what they were doing.
That is too true..I always have wondered what sort of idiotic reasoning was behind that declaration of war. Even Hitler's reasoning for invading Russia was idiotic...The Brits won't give up because they hope to bring Russia in against us which would force us to fight a two-front war against superior odds...what should we do, wait, I know,let's foil their plan by attacking Russia and getting ourselves into a two front war against superior odds...that will show them!
The whole bunch of them were basically street thugs in fancy uniforms,they had no understanding of the real power of the massive continental powers.



NorthernGent -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 10:34:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

My general thesis still remains though, the winning side won through attrition with frontal assaults rather than any sort of truly innovative tactics, yes they used tanks and airplanes effectively, but it was still a frontal assault unlike the German shocktroop tactics in their 1918 offensive.



Yes - granted - the March 1918 offensive smashed through British lines. But I'm not so sure that it was anything to do with innovative tactics. It was a more a case that this was do or die for Ludendorff - one last crack at it before the Americans could make their numbers count and German morale crumbled (food supplies were running out for German soldiers) - so they concentrated all of their resources for the gamble.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

And I maintain that the German defensive through 1914-1918 was brilliant,they developped the tactic of holding their front lines thinnly with heavily occupied and prepared 2nd and 3rd lines whose guns were targetted on the front lines,so that when the Entente finally took the German front lines they were subject to a murderous fire and powerful counter-attack.



It's no real surprise that the Germans developed better defensive tactics - they spent much of the war on the defensive. It wasn't acceptable for the French and British to dig in as they were supposed to be there to shift the Germans - hence the number of British and French attacks. But it was acceptable for the Germans as they would have been happy to negotiate a peace settlement involving gaining the territory they were in control of.

But I still say their tactics weren't anything out of the ordinary. They were able to defend their positions because they were well fortified - the pre-advance bombardments didn't do enough damage to give soldiers advancing over an open field into machine guns much of a chance. The first trench was usually taken with huge casualties to the invaders and the depleted force simply wasn't strong enough to press home the advantage.

That is until the British/Canadians/Aussies got to grips with tanks and infantry. If memory serves the Somme was the first real success with tanks. While the British Army lost more men on the first day of the Somme than any other battle in history - by the end of the Somme (which I think lasted around 5 months) they had learned some important lessons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

The quality of the troops or their leadership was not terribly important, it was numbers that mattered, could you goon dying longer than the other guy could. In the end it was the Anglo-Franco-American (yes along with Aussies, New Zealanders, Canadians, Moroccans, Vietnamese, and God knows who all else as well) who could keep dying longer than the Germans could. Their army broke, partially due to the effects of the blockade, but mostly simply because they had reached the point the French reached in 1917, they could take no more, but unlike the French, they were being assaulted along the entire front and had no chance to recover...so they surrendered.



Yeah their army cracked. But it wasn't to do with a lack of fighting men. In actual fact at no point in the war did the Allies kill more German soldiers than could be replaced (i.e. during every month in the war more Germans reached the age of 18 than were killed/wounded/surrendered). So the men were there to fight - they hadn't been exhausted of soldiers.

The Germans started deserting and surrending in huge numbers in 1918 and there were mutinies in 1917 - Wurttemburg and Saxon units. It's not clear cut why that happened. One thing's for certain: the Germans hadn't necessarily lost their appetite for a fight - witness the returning soldiers and the Freikorps.



Arpig -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/30/2009 10:42:52 PM)

quote:

If memory serves the Somme was the first real success with tanks.
Cambrai in 1917. And that's it for me for today, I've been sipping Sambuca all day and its time to put this old man to bed...I will return tomorrow to address your other points...sleep well all.



DomKen -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/31/2009 12:06:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

but it was the British who gave ground because the government wasn't stupid enough to antagonise a nation with serious resources at its disposal.
You know, it seems that the Brits were the only ones who realized the potential power of the US, not just during the war, but long before that. I wonder why they saw it when so many other Europeans didn't.

I think to a large degree it occured due to the Spanish American war. Spain may not have been at the height of its imperial glory but they were still a major imperial power and they lost it all in what amounted to the first really globe spanning war. The British leaders were accustomed to thinking globally while the rest of Europe gave little notice beyond the continent and perhaps the colonial situtation in Africa so the Brits saw the US as a emerging global power while the rest of Europe ignored it. The disconnect between the reality of the situation in the Americas and Europes misconception is powerfully made clear by the Zimmerman Telegram. The concept that Mexico could successfully invade and hold the states of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico was ludicrous.



NorthernGent -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/31/2009 1:10:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The British leaders were accustomed to thinking globally while the rest of Europe gave little notice beyond the continent and perhaps the colonial situtation in Africa so the Brits saw the US as a emerging global power while the rest of Europe ignored it. The disconnect between the reality of the situation in the Americas and Europes misconception is powerfully made clear by the Zimmerman Telegram. The concept that Mexico could successfully invade and hold the states of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico was ludicrous.



The Germans were fully aware of US power (how could they not be considering the number of US colonial ventures in the 1890s and early 1900s).

In fact one of the German war aims in 1914 was a European customs union under German leadership with the express purpose of preparing for the forthcoming challenge with Russia and the United States (Japan was also seen as a threat to European prosperity after they had despatched the Russians in 1905). Many European political commentators felt a European war would be suicide and serve only to hand the advantage to the United States; some German commentators wanted an alliance with Britain against the United States for cultural reasons (then again others wanted an alliance with the United States to crush 'the hated nation of shop keepers' - the Kaiser's words).

Of course Britain could not have Germany (or any other nation) in control of continental Europe for two reasons: it would have hampered British trade in and out of the English Channel (Napoleon was still in people's minds); it would have threatened Britain's interests in Asia (particularly with the Germans and Turks teaming up). If the Germans could have guaranteed Britain's interests then the British government would have come to an arrangement with them.



Lorsan -> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? (8/31/2009 1:41:08 AM)

Arpig, I agree mostly with your post.  I do have a few points of disagreement though. 

In the US Civil War, Sherman was every bit the butcher Grant was.  Yes he was effective, but if anyone deserved a war crimes trial it was him.  Though that doesn't mean it didn't work.  Also I believe Lee was somewhat overrated.  Gettysburg was easily winnable for the south.  However a few key events happened to prevent a southern victory and an ultimate win for the Confederacy.

And as for WWII, I'd put Patton and Bradley up against any of the German commanders.  Though I have to admit to being a Patton fanboy so take that for what it's worth.  However the victories in the Pacific early on were entirely luck combined with a decent intelligence program.  Only luck kept our carriers away from Pearl.  Then only a flip of the coin won won us Midway.  Had it not been for those two, the Pacific would've been a whole different story probably.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875