 |
 |
|
John III (John Sobieski) The champion of Christian Europe against the Moslem Ottomans . Born to an ancient noble family, he was appointed commander of the Polish army. He defeated the Ottomans at Khotin, and was elected to succeed Michael as King. John's plans to deal with enemies in his neighborhood were put on hold for a new threat had arisen.
His foreign policy changed when Sultan Muhammad IV and the Hungarians under Thököly advanced against Austria. Realizing the danger to all Europe, John allied with Holy Roman Emperor Leopold , leading combined imperial and Polish forces, raised the siege of Vienna and defeated the much larger Ottoman army under Kara Mustapha. Despite Leopold's ungrateful reception, John continued his campaign and pursued the Ottomans into Hungary. However, John's attempts to secure access to the Black Sea by wresting Moldavia and Walachia from the Ottoman Empire were unsuccessful.
John later lost power due to infighting for power in Poland, and with his departure from leadership so did Poland's rise for she was shortly to lose her standing and independence for some time to come. The Ottomans or Turks had excellent calvary that would have swept across Europe if they hadn the important city of Vienna in which to launch their operations. Thank goodness John III of Poland wasn't a let-the-other-countries-send-their-men-to-fight leader(while I make grabs while your busy) or who knows how far we would have fallen. | |
|
 |
|
|
If the Frankish French stop the Moslems from Spain and John the III stopped the Moslems from taking eastern Europe then Emperor Peter the Great stopped the Moslems from taking the steps and holding on to the Balkans. His almost complete move to western ideas allow Russia to be part of the modern world much earlier than if he had never been.
Peter's defeat of the Turks around the Black Sea, the agressive Swedes around the baltic coast and even the Poles proved him to deserve the title great. Peter's interest, and hands on approach, to doing construction and other things upper class twits would consider beneath them is truly advanced of him too.
Peter set the stage for all future leaders to point to the west 's advancements and claim it as Russia's path to glory. Show how not only can it work, but how it could allow Russia to excel beyond all, was Peter's legacy.
Did not his creation of the Russian navy and his battles to win ports on two seas probably save Russia and the Soviets in most of its future wars as well. Could you have had the T-34 tank without the American suspension system or all the supplies sent for aircraft and more? No trade with the west would have left Peter's reforms retracted after his death by reactionaries and time.
Without a strong and modern Russia, German militarism woulds have gone on unchecked. Without two fronts in WWI or WWII it would be Europe under German management. So when you raise a toast next time, save one for Peter the Great. | |
|
 |
|
|
Frederick the Great was the man that allowed Germany to be brought under the leadership of Prussa, instead of Austria who was the odds on favorite to do so, by all, at the time. Known for his tactical skills his strategy shouldn't be overlooked. With enemies all around he continued the short fuse fighting policy which had been necessary in the bottleneck region of eastern Europe.
Said by many reliable sources to have been gay, Frederick never the less- like the bisexual men of Greo-Roman times- still ran a nation and lead an army. Worshipped by generations of Germans up until WWI and WWII he is still shown in a good light today by many Germans for his modernization of the bureaucracy and more.
Frederick was admired by Napoleon for both of them had the ability to get the troops to the right point of battle at the key time. Whether this separated his opposing armies or meant having the most at the point of attack. He was the first to bring up the idea of Preemptive Attack, to forestall his enemies organizing or gathering together. This is understandable from the eastern parts of Europe when the Prussian state was so weak, yet later the Kaiser and the German military staff decided to use this upon Russian mobilization, which launched the First World War.
Aggressive when cornered isn't equal to aggressive as standard military practice to win- as the Japanese used at Pearl Harbor. The American's use of Preemptive Attack is wrongly compared to the German's use, for the use of terrorism makes preemptive attacks really reactive. Only a weasel would claim the Americans should continue to take it on the chin and not go after the source, who are always going to claim their plausible deniability.
If we accept all claims of plausible deniability at face value then all terrorism will increase as it had for the years after WWII, due to everyone accepting words over actions or deeds(effeminancy).
Therefore Frederick the Great's use of preemptive strikes matches the American's use of the modern strategy today, while the Soviets preemptive taking of the Baltic states and Finland matches the Kaiser's false use of Preemptive Attack as an excuse to pursue grand ambitions.
It funny how the actors ancestors, who violate the use of Preemptive Attack, are the one's now complaining of its more proper use! Honorless of them don't you think? | |
|
 |
|
|
To understand Napoleon's skills is to understand his first position in the army. As an artillery officer he started his way to the top with the effect use of artillery, just at the time it was becoming more of a consistent weapon in the field of battle. Artillery to this point had been very useful at sieges, yet had failed to be decisive on the field of battle, where infantry and calvary were still much more important.
The Second factor was the mass formations used in the revolution to date to deal with the foreign armies opposed to the revolution. Large, often unorganized, columns with sharp shooters out front to weaken the enemy formation before the large mass of revolutionary forces would smash into the them. Napoleon saw these factors up close. Infantry fire need large formations for the effectiveness of the rifle was not to arrive until the US Civil War, where they carried on Napoleonic tactics to the slaughter of their men. Napoleon allowed for the other traditions of effective warfare to be reintroduced into the army after the casualness of the initial revolutionary armies. His background, both his parents were soldiers in Paoli army and his familiarity with roman warfare, allowed him to bring to bare other older ideas. The Romans and the French under Napoleon effectively used their men's superior marching and knowlege of roads to great effect. Having his armies all arrive at the right time and place to outnumber his opponets at the point of attack b was a trade mark. Even when heavily outnumbered he could use his artillery to batter and his army to scatter. French horses were lower quality and often treated worse, yet could be counted on to cut down the retreating army after the earlier steps. This may be why Napoleon organized the Polishish lancers, for he knew of his weakness in calvary and took steps to improve it where ever he could.
Napoleon made the mistake of fighting too often which allowed his enemies to slowly but surely learn the new methods of war. While at sea it was the British who were the task masters and they left few veterans to learn their methods of sea battle for their was less chances of running away and surviving when you ship was blown out of the water. | |
|
 |
|
|
Germany throughout its history has been a hubris centered mecca. From calling their country the Fatherland to getting into fights with everybody at the same time for sometimes the smallest of issues the boyish attitude is unmistakable. When looking at German history I can't but see the boy in it square-headed line drawing. Into this mix arrived Bismark. He was able to help united all the stubborn princes, barons etc., while keeping Europe in a state of balance. Some of his wars against Denmark and France were measured in the first case and tough in the second case, but always measured. The French under Napoleon II were asking for conflict and got what they deserved, and here is where the French grab for control of Europe by force finally ended.
The German war machine at that time was overpowering and yet Bismark showed real restraint, like the Americans have been doing for some time with few seeming to notice. Yes, he could have brought on more democracy, but that would have made unting Germany and holding it together harder. With revolutionaries, stubborn barons all he would have needed was a bunch of self-created enemies. We sometimes expect too much like with Alexander II of Russia , before he was assassinated.
I not admiring his political skill as a politican, more as the leadership of the armed forces, who were chomping at the bit-so of speak. Which later the new square-headed Kasier couldn't deal with.
Bismark had his fingers in the holes holding back the dam of combustible men- who had the kind of unbalanced emotional zeal (after the 1800's unification) of the male kind. This male emotion, which can be seen in a pack setting, can be just as dangerous as the opposite effeminate kind of ideas (never fight under any conditions).
Liberals continue to see reform of government as the only reform of note. Reform of the army in non-political ways that bring things other than victory are dimissed for liberals-socialists have no idea what it is to change one self as they are concerned with changing others. | |
|
 |
|
| There were a lot of leaders in the Boar (Farmer) Army of South Africa that deserve credit in the humbling of the British Army in the Boar War. This Humbling ,like that of the Soviets in Finland in WWII proved invaluable in preparing the British for WWI. Koos De Rey seems the main leader who had the greatest effect in the Boars successful defense of their lands. Churchill in honorable tribute to the respect he had of the Boars gave us the word commando when naming his special forces. Both the gorillia tactics and the special forces are still the center of success or failure in our conflicts of today. Large scale affairs are for the biggest powers- and all lesser countries, ethic groups and relgious supports are left to the style of warfare first practiced in South Africa by Koos De Rey and the other Boars. At the outset of war Koos was reluctant to join the fight, and when challenged by some of his countrymen for his lack of fighting spirit was reported to have said when and if he joined he would be fighting after the wind bag short fuse types had given up the fight. This is just what happened. | |
|
 |
|
|
Authur Currie was a Canadian officer who earned his fame at Vimy Ridge. Canadians who care about their military history can always look to the past for men who fought by their friends. The Canadians had proved their worth when the Germans first used gas and all fled before it, except the Canadian who pissed in cloth and used it to deal with the gas as a mask.
If this were not proof enough of who were the best troops, Authur Currie then used the idea of rolling artillery, with his troops following right behind the falling shells, this gave the Germans the idea -much later- of storm troops. The Canadians took the fortress area, that took so many lives before in failed attempts, and a lot more. This spelled the beginning of the end, even before the arrival of the tanks. Some in allies ranks were proving to think of honorable ways to win, as opposed to gas, U-boats and blimps dropping bombs on civilians.
We are told later that our propaganda had showed the Huns unfairly as monsters during the war. Or maybe their dishonorable tactics were properly being protrayed, and what was false was the individual chivarlry of the Germans, which was always being overruled by ORDERS! If there were any doubts by the second world war the Germans had shown their true color, or are we now unjust in protraying the Nazis too as monsters? Now we see liberal-sociaists try to dress up our men in our own societies are Nazis , while we are nice to the Germans at international forums when they sometimes try to under mine our Pax -America. It's a funny old world! | |
|
 |
|
|
Almost unknown outside of Finland this leader of the free Finns lead an amazing defence of his homeland against the Soviets when they imperialisticly attacked Finland and some other baltic states.
The allies demanded the Germans give up their attack on Poland , but had little to say of Stalin's grab. Mannermean slowed down and stop the vastly superiour Soviet forces for a time and forced the them into a disgracefull use of overkill- as the Soviets put in even more huge armies later.
What often gets forgotten in this valiant defence by the Finns, under Mannermean, was had they not given the Soviets such a beating in taking parts of Finland the Soviets wouldn't have gone threw the changes or reforms that came after the debacle. They possibly wouldn't have cooperated as much with the Germans in joint exhanges. They would have been even more unprepared for the coming war with Germany. The Germans surely wouldn't have cooperated with the Soviets unless it were for the oil. Therefore the allies could have lost it all if it weren't for Mannermean.
If you are only concerned with generals that win, than Mannermean is a loser. If you are concerned with small forces that kick the ass of several large giants then Mannermean is your man. Again it seems that our dishonor in not supporting the Finns seems to have played a part in our not raising in stature a great military man to his proper place. Well not here! | |
|
 |
|
|
The exploits of the Desert Fox are quite well known. Aside from fighting in North Africa, with lesser resources and men, and still almost winning- we should take notice of his destruction of the opposing French forces in the German's taking of France. He headed the lead army group running deeply into France in the French's disgraceful defense of France.
Hitler had ordered captured jewish English soldiers to be dealt with harshly in Africa, which Rommel ignored these order at his own risk.
In World War I Rommel received the German's highest ranking medal for his actions in Italy, while he fought with great distinction in Romania and France in WWI as well. He took good care of his men pushing them hard to build proper trenches, that would often bring down his soldiers death dramatically.
He was lucky to fight against the western allies and avoided the nastiness on the eastern front though. He kept his honor in the west, but would he have been able to stand up to all the dishonorable behavior on the eastern front- we will never know.
He was unable to keep his distance from the assassination attempt of Hitler. He then chose suicide over his own disgrace and his family's suffering from who knows whose hands. | |
|
 |
|
|
General Zuckov fought as a cavalry officer early in his career, where he proved both to be brave and capable. He also fittingly fought in the Russian Civil War between the Reds and Whites, which would later prepare him for the no-holds-bar conflict on the eastern front of WWII.
His first real experience at command came against the Japanese, where he dealt them such a series of crushing blows that the Japanese gave up on participating in the obvious two front attack on the Soviet Union with the Axis powers in Europe. When the Soviets learned the Japanese had no intention of attacking from the east they withdrew almost all their troops to the western front where they proved indispensable.
If this were not a key effort in itself Zuckov's second major command success was the defense of Leningrad (present day St. Petersburg). He succeed in stopping the Germans there.
Next he then moved on to the defense of Moscow where he took over its defense and again defeated it attackers. From here on in we know of the Soviets almost none stop successes and the total defeat of the German third reich.
No man in WWII was more important in the defeat of the Germans. The western allies could never have handled the forces the Russians faced in the east. As with other wars in Europe the Russians man power was still key. Yet in WWII it was not enough. Without Zuckov we would be looking at Hitler as some undefeated Napoleon and the history books would have so much more historical revisionism than is even taking place today that it would be dizzying. We would also have been in denial for a hundred to a thousand years longer.
The Germans soul would have learned to be even more squared-headed than before, while whole races would have been exterminated.
Our emotional types of today would be on the other side of the political horseshoe screaming with just as much rhetoric, but for state control of another kind.
Stalin and western leaders both have played their part in diminishing Zuckov's role. For us to admit we played a lesser part in the success of WWII, that we were criminally unprepared for the war and even with our technology would have lost it. This is something many are trying to hide. The fact that the managerial revolution had taken place and this is what allowed the Nazis and Soviets to increase their outputs is also in denial even today .
The US military industrial complex, say what you will of it, has learned this lesson with the cold hard determination that comes from imagining what would have happened without Zuckov. A country without a prepared armed forces is an effeminate fantasy land, and the nations that are in fact ungratefully defended by the US deserve all the scorn the red necks throw at them -and then some. The emotional logic behind these ideas is coming to the surface more and more lately and it is only a matter of time until men finally reject these effeminate ideas as they did the male extremes found in Germany in the 1900s.
Remember I'm Canadian and my father is English, and have lived over 1/4 of my life in Japan. Why do I see it as I do, unless some facts give weight to a position so unpopular. I started my an anti-communism early in my youth, but still see Zuckov as the key to our WWII win. |
|
|
cbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbc
|
|
|
|
