 |
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
George Washington engaged in genocide against the Native Americans in what is now Ohio from 1791-94. He is still a great man (please note I did not say good), and the founder of our nation. He also engaged in a war of extermination. These actions neither excuse nor minimize each other, but like most great men, in pursuit of the goal he saw as primary (founding the US) he did some terrible things. None of which bears on his competency as a general  .
Sherman hated causing extra casualties to his troops, and was one of the originators of the modern version of total war (ancient warface was at times total war but not always for the same reasons). To save his troops casualties he guaranteed the starvation of thousands. Great man, and utterly ruthless (though his own letters indicate he regretted it, but saw it as producing less death in the long run - see the thread on the A-bomb and Japan from several weeks ago). 
David Ben-Gurion fought for a government that deliberately displaced tens of thousands (as a minimum) native muslims from the land that became Israel. It is documented that in numerous cases these people were ethnically cleansed, in the meaning of the term now, to ensure a Zionist state with a Jewish majority. In those cases the native muslims were not kicked out and simply fled, why did they feel a need to flee (note - there were terrible people on the Arab side to, but none are going done in history as great generals). The regular everyday muslim villager couldn't care less about the arab fanatics, he just wanted to be left in peace. Ben-Gurion was a brilliant general. He also was complicit in one of the more extensive cases of ethnic cleansing (genocide lite - sick humor).
Did all three do evil things? Yes. Does it change the validity of the fact that they were great generals, or historically important men. No. Guderian and Rommel (as well as Patton, Sherman, Ben-Gurion, ad naseum) were all great generals. I let someone upstairs decide if they were evil men (not my job, in fact most religions specify that  ).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
and as for him , well he defended the regime and he gave orders to put people in KZ's |
Yes... and? Putting people in Concentration Camps has nothing to do with his genius as a general.
quote:
and you my friend would be on his list also |
Yes, and?
You, as always, seem to be once again to be missing the point. None of this crap matters. Who cares if he was an evil bastard? Sometimes the most evil bastards make the best generals. |
any general that has somewhat self respect in him would not do that , ......... 
and yes it matters he was not a good general at all , cause if he really was one , well then the whole of europe would still be speaking german , .........
great general , pffffffff , great no can win or can hold general ya mean , ......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
and yes it matters he was not a good general at all , cause if he really was one , well then the whole of europe would still be speaking german , .........
great general , pffffffff , great no can win or can hold general ya mean , ...... |
You are nuts. So a general is ONLY defined as great if he wins, even if his enemy has greater manpower?
You know the whole of Europe almost WAS under Germany. That is quite a feat in itself.
So I take it you think that Robert E. Lee and Napoleon were horrible generals? |
was and almost , ......
there is no feat at all in killing people , ......
rommel for example was in charge of the atlantic wall , now every says that he wanted tank ramps there as well , ...... well since he oversaw most of the work , why did he not build them then , cause he was a screwup , he could have done better in africa also , second thing , while building that wall a great deal of people died thanks to slave labor , third thing , no in depth defense , no air cover , not enough AA , etc , ..... these are things a great general would have forseen , .......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Yeah, Napolean, I mean, come on, what a LOSER. |
quote:
there is no feat at all in killing people , ...... |
quote:
rommel for example was in charge of the atlantic wall , now every says that he wanted tank ramps there as well , ...... well since he oversaw most of the work , why did he not build them then , cause he was a screwup , he could have done better in africa also , second thing , while building that wall a great deal of people died thanks to slave labor , third thing , no in depth defense , no air cover , not enough AA , etc , ..... these are things a great general would have forseen |
Are you being dumb on purpose .
A. 'tank ramps' - ever hear of resources? If you oversea all the work, it doesn't mean that you get everything you ask for.
B. He could have done better in Africa? What? There is a reason he is called the 'desert fox' because even though the British knew all of his plans, he still out'fox'ed them. He did better than anyone expected of him.
C. Who cares that a great deal of people died because of slave labor while building the wall? That has no bearing on generalship whatsoever.
D. The Atlantic Wall was pretty decent on the closer path to Germany (Calais). They did not go as far on Normandy with all the defenses because they figured if the allies landed there they could fight them in France.
E. I'm still wonder who this 'great' omniscient general is you are talking about who can foresee everything and never make a mistake.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Yeah, Napolean, I mean, come on, what a LOSER. |
quote:
there is no feat at all in killing people , ...... |
quote:
rommel for example was in charge of the atlantic wall , now every says that he wanted tank ramps there as well , ...... well since he oversaw most of the work , why did he not build them then , cause he was a screwup , he could have done better in africa also , second thing , while building that wall a great deal of people died thanks to slave labor , third thing , no in depth defense , no air cover , not enough AA , etc , ..... these are things a great general would have forseen |
Are you being dumb on purpose .
A. 'tank ramps' - ever hear of resources? If you oversea all the work, it doesn't mean that you get everything you ask for.
B. He could have done better in Africa? What? There is a reason he is called the 'desert fox' because even though the British knew all of his plans, he still out'fox'ed them. He did better than anyone expected of him.
C. Who cares that a great deal of people died because of slave labor while building the wall? That has no bearing on generalship whatsoever.
D. The Atlantic Wall was pretty decent on the closer path to Germany (Calais). They did not go as far on Normandy with all the defenses because they figured if the allies landed there they could fight them in France.
E. I'm still wonder who this 'great' omniscient general is you are talking about who can foresee everything and never make a mistake. |
before you go any further , check out his own memo's , .....
tankramps to get on the beach use about the same amount of concrete the wall till the top would need , ......
and as for the rest , get the facts first , ......
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Correction to one post.
quote:
Azazel said: Well, that's not precise. What it did do, is prevent arab refugees from returning. There was no mass forced displacement. Refugees aren't always forsibly displaced. |
Actually, they were many cases of forced displacement, and execution (of a few select individual resisting, to get the rest to leave), of Muslim villagers in some villages, primarily involving the more radical Zionist troops/leaders. The same ones who wanted to tear down the Mosque on the Temple Mount (the extreme Zionist way of looking at it- thankfully the more responsible politicians nixed that idea, the resulting Jihad would have been hideous).
Azazel statement is mostly correct, number wise. Note though, those refugees did the horribly stupid thing of fleeing a war, a war where the opposing side included religious fanatics, terrorists (they deliberately targeted civilians), and leaders whose stated intent was to dispossess them? I don't think the "just didn't let them return" statement lets the Israeli government off the hook. Nor Ben-Gurion, while he wasn't one of the fanatics, he definitely knew who his allies were, as he almost had to know about the forcible removal of muslims, especially in critical villages at strategic locations. It smells like ethnic cleansing, it walks like ethnic cleansing, and it craps like ethnic cleansing. It's ethnic cleansing.
By the way, it still doesn't hold a candle to what the US did to the native Americans, it's just alot more recent and affects current politics. It's not at the nazi level, but I didn't bring that up. Most countries have genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced relocations of populations in their histories. Generals get to do the dirty work. And if they aren't the kind that will follow that kind of order, guess what? They almost never get to be a general. Which is why the confuser of complaining about a general's government, and often leads to circular arguments.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
tankramps to get on the beach use about the same amount of concrete the wall till the top would need , ......
and as for the rest , get the facts first |
So the tankramps would have taken the same amount of concrete that the wall did and you are saying since they weren't built he was a bad general? What?
I do have the facts, obviously you don't. Or you were dropped on your head as a child!
I do wonder who panag considers to be a good general in WW2, especially from the German side. Or does he think no German general was good at all? I wonder then how they had an empire that spread from close to Moscow all the way to Southern France. |
he himself ( rommel ) ask the todd organisation to build them , yet when he signs himself the plans they are not there , later he after june 44 several people shall blaim him for that , ......
as for a german empire ,
resistance was everywhere and he never reached moscow , why , cause they where not prepared , ....... a good general prepares BEFORE he goes to war , ........
they never where able to control the med , they where never able to get rid of Malta and Gibraltar , huge mistakes on the tactical level , .......... any serious general would now this , .....
and since they did not went to the south of france from the start , pffffffff
one can fill pages with the german mistakes , they came , yeah , but is was over in no time , ..... if they where any good like in the battle of the bulge they would have stayed around for a bit more , .......
mistakes , one after an other is all the german high command ever did , .........
what a bunch of jokers , .........
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-11-2003 12:04
|