Who do you think the greatest military leader of all time is?

kstruckcountry · January 9, 2013

I think he shot himself

kstruckcountry · January 9, 2013

Murdering millions makes you great? News to me.

Chris · January 9, 2013

He wasn't murdering the enemy. He mass murdered innocent people

BlackZ71Silverado · January 9, 2013

This thread should probably be closed...This Hitler stuff is only going to get worse and will be out of control.

Sent from my iPhone4S

using Tapatalk

tanked_darren · January 9, 2013

Well most countries that have engaged in war have killed thousands of innocents including the US I agree this thread is gonna go bad we need a "tin foil hat and politics area"

Sent from my Nokia 5190 using Tapatalk 2

SarahsGMC · January 9, 2013

Me

Sent from your truck via Tapatalk

music · January 9, 2013

When the object of war is to kill your enemy and you do it well, yes it does make a great general.

Genocide is not a military tactic... it's murder. Great leaders seek to achieve specific objectives with a minimum of casualties on either side. Killing is not the goal... it is simply a means of achieving victory. Hitler, Stalin, etc. were egotistical maniacs. The German war machine broke from "proper" warfare tactics, and lost their way terribly. Hitler's actions led to the destruction of his country, the downfall of Japan, and the death of millions. Absolutely the worst leader of the 20th century.

Abraham Lincoln was a great leader, and George Patton was a great general.

SnakeEyeSS · January 9, 2013

This thread should probably be closed...This Hitler stuff is only going to get worse and will be out of control.

Sent from my iPhone4S

using Tapatalk

It was used out of context anyway. The advancements were made from horrific, torturous experiments. The only honor or thanks goes to those who died, not those that performed them.

Plus, there is a huge difference between a great leader and having great leaders under you. Strategically speaking, he LOST the war due to a few obsessive battles(Britain, for one).

Lincoln did what he had to do, but he did not set out to do the honorable thing. Read the transcripts of when he was running and after elected(specifically his debate with Douglas). He said he would do whatever it took to keep the union together, even if it meant to work to keep slavery around. I still question why he picked Grant to lead the Union. If you have ever read about his past, that guy had basically failed out of the army the first time. He could barely keep his life together. The only way Grant got anything accomplished was by the grace of God. Even after the war he seemed to mess up half the stuff he touched.