The Greatest German Chancellor

[Brogavia]

So how do you think it went down then?

It was all the goddamn Jews' fault.

Actually it might have been. Or just how the german killed them. If they had used them as meat shields and sent them ahead of the tanks to clear minefield the way the Soviets did, abiet on a much smaller scale, with political disidents. Tell them to charge the soviet lines with grenades or get shot if you run or try and use them against us.

[Maurepas]

I think its prettymuch no contest, I mean, Otto von Bismark really cant be beat...

[Robarya]

:lol: Bismarck bias methinks.
I'd slap Bismarck if i had the chance, his stupid alliances pretty much paved the way toward WW1.
Only other Chancellor i've heard of is Merkel so i voted her.

His stupid alliances? You are the one who's biased here. The creation of alliances has always been a natural development within politics to guarantee the safety of one's nation aswell as preserving the balance of power. Of course Bismarck made alliances; all leaders of the time did because it was a necessity.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

:lol: Bismarck bias methinks.
I'd slap Bismarck if i had the chance, his stupid alliances pretty much paved the way toward WW1.
Only other Chancellor i've heard of is Merkel so i voted her.

His stupid alliances? You are the one who's biased here. The creation of alliances has always been a natural development within politics to guarantee the safety of one's nation aswell as preserving the balance of power. Of course Bismarck made alliances; all leaders of the time did because it was a necessity.

Which in the course of time fucked over Europe royally. His dick waving over France was not a smart move.
Although i admit i have bias, hindsight does that to everyone i think.

[Maurepas]

:lol: Bismarck bias methinks.
I'd slap Bismarck if i had the chance, his stupid alliances pretty much paved the way toward WW1.
Only other Chancellor i've heard of is Merkel so i voted her.

His stupid alliances? You are the one who's biased here. The creation of alliances has always been a natural development within politics to guarantee the safety of one's nation aswell as preserving the balance of power. Of course Bismarck made alliances; all leaders of the time did because it was a necessity.

Which in the course of time fucked over Europe royally. His dick waving over France was not a smart move.
Although i admit i have bias, hindsight does that to everyone i think.

Well, it wasnt a smart move for Europe, but, it was definitely a smart move for Germany, Id say he was the best Chancellor for Germany, from Germany...The problem was in the fact that all the other heads of government were doing the same for their respective nations...I mean Napoleon III was doing as much, if not more, dick waving as Bismark...

As far as smart moves for Europe, which ever one was present for the founding of the EU, probably the same for the rest of the European nations...

[Yootopia]

As far as smart moves for Europe, which ever one was present for the founding of the EU, probably the same for the rest of the European nations...

Adenauer, who was a pretty excellent chancellor.

[Serrland]

Kulturkampf causes me to want an "anyone but Bismarck" option...

[Fredrikshamn]

Why isn't Adolf up there. He did pull Germany out of the worst depression in it's history. Sure, you may not agree with his methods, but you can't argue with the results. *Someone pulls Takaram aside and whispers in his ear. Takaram returns* Uh, strike that, never mind. I guess you can argue with the results.

Hitler was a paranoid, narcissistic, idiot. He lost the war for Germany. His demand that they try and take Leiningrad, the Ukraine and Moscow all at the same time was what lost the war. Then he threw away the chance Germany had to win in the East at Kursk.

Do you believe everything the history channel and your textbooks tell you?

No just the fun stuff... like Modern Marvels and the episode on Salt. That was some good watchin... lol... but seriously good point... Doesnt the victors write the history books and in doing so "they write it" or am I wrong?

[Robarya]

Who ordered the Germany Army to stop the offensive at Kursk?

The battle had already been lost for sure at that stage.

Who ordered the OKH to divert resources away from the Moscow Offensive toward Leiningrad?

Historians exaggerate the possibility of an attack towards Moscow. In reality the Germans didn't have enough forces to spare to attack Moscow without risks of getting cut off; it was necessary to neutralize the Russian forces in Ukraine to free up more divisions before heading towards Moscow.

Who ordered them to fight to the last instead of falling back and regroup? Who tried to micro-manage first two and then three fronts instead of letting people who actually knew how to run a war?

It sounds kind of funny how you say this after you criticize the decision to stop the summer offensive of 1943. Anyways, it turned out to be a bad idea to hold on to Stalingrad, but in other circumstances, such as the winter of 1942 when the Russians counterattacked after Barbarossa, the order to hold the ground turned out to be a good idea, considering the Germans only lost a negligible amount of territory and soldiers compared to what they could have lost.

So how do you think it went down then?

Germany lost because it failed to achieve a fast victory over Russia, which resulted in a war of attrition where Germany was at a disadvantage. If Herr Hitler had listened to most of his generals since the onset of the war, it is possible that Germany would have fought the long and bitter war in the west instead, considering his generals were overly pessimistic about the invasion of France. The one seriously bad decision Herr Hitler made was to declare war on the United States, although the U.S. would likely have joined in sooner or later on the Allied side anyways.

[Brogavia]

Exactly. The history books and documentaries are not exactly unbiased.

To attempt seizing all of Russia in one year was a hard task to accomplish, but a fast victory was necessary to prevent a war of attrition in which Germany would be at disadvantage because of Russia's vast amounts of manpower available. It is true that Germany --and many other nations too, for that matter-- underestimated Russia, but then they had good reason to do so considering Russia's very poor performance during the Winter War against Finland.

While they did underestimate them, they could have taken Moscow if they hadn't spent valuable manpower trying to take Leningrad at the same time. The extra man power might have made the difference.

When it comes to Kursk, Germany didn't stand a chance to win the war, even if they had won at Kursk. Not only were the Russians heavily entrenched, they would also have been able to afford the losses if they had suffered a defeat at Kursk, and would not have had to worry about losing the war in such a scenario. At this point the Russian factories were spitting out equipment, the Russians received lots of supplies through Lend & Lease, the Russian army was stronger than that of Germany and its quality was far better than it had been in 1941 and besides that the Western Allies had gained a foothold in Italy.

That said, a summer offensive in 1943 was better than staying on the defense, since a defensive stance would have assured Germany's destruction given the superior numbers, equipment and resources of its enemies. By launching Zitadelle the Germans at least had a perceived chance of victory.

When the offensive was called off, the germans had yet to committ the full extent of its reserves. Not only this, but they were in a position to utterly break through and destroy several addition Soviet Tank Armies, in addition to the 5th Guards Tank Army; which had been completely shattered and withdrawn from the field, and since the Soviets had committed all of their operational and strategic armoured reserves, a breakthrough would have caught them in a position where they would have been forced to sit back and watch because diverting forces to try and halt the breakthrough, would have made the counter offensive in the other areas falter. The loss of so many men and so much material would have delayed the Soviet offensive of late 43 into early 44 at best. This would have given the Germans enough time to regroup. Meaning they might have had time to launch another winter offensive.

[Dyakovo]

Adolf Hitler
No, I am not serious

[Maurepas]

Adolf Hitler
No, I am not serious

I actually wondered why he wasnt on the list, I mean, I wouldnt vote for him, of course, but, he should be on the list, if for no other reason than to see how many would...

Its like putting together a list of great Russian leaders without Stalin, he has to be on there...

[Yootopia]

Could you take your woefully ill-sourced argument about the course of the Eastern Front of the Second World War and make it its own topic or something?

[Maurepas]

Could you take your woefully ill-sourced argument about the course of the Eastern Front of the Second World War and make it its own topic or something?

Why? Everyone knows thats the only thing about Germany that matters,

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Adolf Hitler
No, I am not serious

he did win the nobel peace prize after all, he must be a good guy.

[Brogavia]

The battle had already been lost for sure at that stage.

It wasn't cancelled because the Germans were losing. Far from it. It was cancelled because the Allies landed in Sicily and Hitler ordered the 2nd SS Panzer Corps to Italy, of which only one division ever actually got redeployed, without any of its equipment.

Historians exaggerate the possibility of an attack towards Moscow. In reality the Germans didn't have enough forces to spare to attack Moscow without risks of getting cut off; it was necessary to neutralize the Russian forces in Ukraine to free up more divisions before heading towards Moscow.

Really? They had them cut off, surrounded and ready to surrender but Hitler had the SS go in and butcher them.

It sounds kind of funny how you say this after you criticize the decision to stop the summer offensive of 1943. Anyways, it turned out to be a bad idea to hold on to Stalingrad, but in other circumstances, such as the winter of 1942 when the Russians counterattacked after Barbarossa, the order to hold the ground turned out to be a good idea, considering the Germans only lost a negligible amount of territory and soldiers compared to what they could have lost.

It wasn't the order the hold ground that I critize its the order to fight to the last man for every single inch of territory they occupied.

Germany lost because it failed to achieve a fast victory over Russia, which resulted in a war of attrition where Germany was at a disadvantage. If Herr Hitler had listened to most of his generals since the onset of the war, it is possible that Germany would have fought the long and bitter war in the west instead, considering his generals were overly pessimistic about the invasion of France. The one seriously bad decision Herr Hitler made was to declare war on the United States, although the U.S. would likely have joined in sooner or later on the Allied side anyways.

Ah, it emerges. Hitler was an idiot. He was good speaker, nothing more.

[Barzan]

Um...why the hell isn't Brandt on here? His Ostpolitik brought both Germanys into the UN and seriously thawed the Cold War. He also was the first chancellor to address the Holocaust and Germany's role in it.

[Yootopia]

Um...why the hell isn't Brandt on here? His Ostpolitik brought both Germanys into the UN and seriously thawed the Cold War. He also was the first chancellor to address the Holocaust and Germany's role in it.

Quite. No idea why shitey Schroeder is on there, either.