lets end the speculation. there is alot of guessing done on this subject, and it is almost purely opinion. but it seems like it could be a fun topic to debate. i have included a few options in this poll, but i have also included a "none of the above" option. if you select this, please elaborate on who you select, and why. lets have a fun debate!
in my opinion the greatest military stratigist is the person that fulfilled the following: 1. taken the most land 2. gained the most resources 3. lost the least people
i think genghis khan as he was so forward in his thinking compared to the times which was what won him so much land without many of the resources that others had
Adolf Hitler was definitely the most undercredited military strategist ever. He led Germany out of inflation. He united the Aryan people of Austria, Poland, Vichy France, and the Sudetenland. He gained support from Italy, Japan, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. Political and economic preparation is the first step in military strategy. Blitzkrieg, in my opinion was an immeasurably effective technique. He used propaganda and destroyed freedom of the press, in order to give himself complete control over the German people. A man who has no control of his amen is no more an army than a pile of bricks is a house. Then, he used conscription to build his armies. Military and cultural preparation is the second level of military strategy. He started tank warfare, which is still used even today. He was the first to use airplanes as bombers effectively on a large-scale basis. He conquered most of Europe, which alone considering the time frame would make him the greatest strategist ever. He staged the first large-scale attack in the history of warfare. Germany’s navy was even one of the greatest of it’s time. If not for Italy’s weakness and his own obsession with the Jewish problem, Hitler might have won the war in Europe. The fact that many of his military techniques are still present in today’s warfare shows the greatness of their creator.
Ummm....Blitzkrieg was not invented by Adolf Hitler. On top of that you cannot argue that those very political and very unmilitary things are military strategy. The British started "tank warfare", surprise surprise, with the invention of the tank. Can't have tank warfare without tanks, can you? If by "using bombers effectively on a large scale basis" you meant "Using long range escorts so bad that they themselves had to be escorted" or "Not putting enough engines on your bombers" then you might be onto something. Otherwise that's just more nonsense. "Germany’s navy was even one of the greatest of it’s time. "? No it wasn't! In WWII which is the period you are discussing they had a puny navy, smaller than Italy's. You are not even discussing the right man's military techniques. Look up Ludendorff, Guderian, and Rommel. You might learn something. Adolf Hitler was a good politician. As a military strategist he was fairly useless.
Also we have to remember the difference between a good strategist and a good tactician. Hannibal was fucking GREAT at winning battles, but not at exploiting those victories. That is an example of a good tactician but not such a great strategist. I don't know why George Washington is in that list. Probably the same reason as Princess Diana was in the list of top 100 Britons of all time and Eminem ended up in the 100 greatest artists of all time polls, or whatever the hell they were.
i have always believed that if they had kept hitler locked in a bunker, surrounded by maps on tables, and let him play "army men"...meanwhile ignoring all his advice, and telling him that they were doing exactly as he said, that the nazis very well could have crushed the allies. for one, the russians would have not been backstabbed. shit, thats a several million man army right there that the nazis wouldnt have had to fight unnecessarily.
agreed. given germany's tremendous technological advantages hitler, if he was so great, should have won ww2. i also agree on the naval aspects too. the only "navy" the germans had was the submarine wolfpacks. by the end of 43 it was in ruins. of course germany had the bismark but was so afraid of it getting sunk that he never used it.
Sorry but the Bismark was sunk, 27 May 1941: Bismarck went under the waves at 10.39 hours that morning. Unaware of the fate of the ship, Group West, the German command base, continued to issue signals to Bismarck for some hours, until Reuters reported news from Britain that the ship had been sunk. In Britain, the House of Commons was informed of the sinking early that afternoon.
Someone (I can't remember who) said "Most of history's 'great' generals were really average generals facing incompetent opponents."
This list isn't complete, especially when men like Frederick the Great of Prussia, Julius Caesar, Adolphus Gustavus of Sweden, and many others are left out. But if I had to choose among the list, I'd choose Alexander the Great. Not many leaders can take a few tens of thousands of Macedonians and defeat hundreds of thousands of Persians, Egyptians, Bactrians, Greek Mercenaries, and Indians, while also planning invasions of the rest of India, Arabia, and Northern Africa. Had he not prematurely died, the world might've been vastly different than they way we see it now.