So, while there has been discussion of the best millitary commanders in history, I'd like to discuss the opposite side. Who's the worst? Was it George McClellan? Was it Luigi "I'll fricking do it again" Cadornia? Or is there someone who fricked up even harder then these two? It's time to discuss the biggest faillures in command.
Me
>t. lost the first Nod mission in Tiberian Sun back when I was a kid
Don't worry, Anon. Power shifts quickly within the Brotherhood.
whomever that b***h was during american civil war on the union side who was so scared of attacking a hill fortified with painted LOGS made to look like cannons that Lincoln eventually wrote to him and basically said
>if you are not using your army, do you mind if I borrow it for a while?
While he was generally a pussy about attacking, he did get the Army into fighting shape, and his soldiers loved him. I personally think Alexander Haig is a good candidate for one of the worst commanders of WW1, which is saying a lot.
You mean Douglas Haig.
General Alexander Haig was the guy who inadvertently implied he was launching a coup against Reagan.
the funniest part of that was everyone basically said "yeah we knew he was moronic but we didn't correct him because we didn't care enough to start a conflict at the time"
>Reagan
I always get a kick out of the absolute seething Reagan generates.
He did start the decline of America
That was LBJ though.
LBJ's only major fault was not executing Nixon for sabotaging the Paris peace accords which would have ended the Vietnam War in a Korean War stalemate instead of a total communist victory.
>great society wasn't a fault
LBJs fault was ever escalating Viet Nam because there was no strategic interest at stake and geography (Nam not peninsula like Korea) doomed any effort there because the enemy could simply resume on their timetable.
There was nothing lost by leaving and Nams real enemy China promptly attacked them not long afterwards. Americans should never want to change primitive cultures. Democracy is for moderns who already built a modern society and want it back (the defeated Axis).
The US never needed Nam, A-stan or Iraq which is why no one has ever articulated a compelling argument for those wars. (Mossading OBL would have cost far less, the war was a show for the public back home.)
What do you think I'm talking about? LBJ realized there was no winnable end game for Vietnam which was a major reason he didn't run for re-election and was pushing for peace talks. The problem is the Nixon Campaign started to do secret communications with the Vietnamese with the explicate intention to sabotage any peace talks to help Nixon get elected.
It worked and Nixon was elected, and expanded the war to be an even greater disaster and humiliation for America.
Johnson fricked up in not exposing Nixon before the election because he felt doing so would totally erode the people's trust in elected office. Of course then Nixon would be the first president to resign. And we've had much worse people afterwards.
Thanks for being a guttless pussy LBJ.
By the time Sheridan rode through the Valley, the Confederate Army was a spent force.
After the 3rd Battle of Winchester and Jubal Early’s defeat at the Battle of Cedar Creek, the Army of the Valley was essentially bled out.
t/ live in the Shenandoah.
Woodrow Wilson, actually.
It was actually Chester Arthur. I won't elaborate because you're not smart enough to get it.
Why are you talking shit about Chester A Arthur? Did you know he was the Collector of Customs at the Port of New York?
Well by that logic, you could say Charles Guiteau.
> decline
we havent peaked yet, not even close
>2 more weeks until we transition
Wilson.
This. I always tell the old liberals that Reagan was decent and they get all upset.
>He destroyed the evil Soviet empire is what he did. He was a brave American president. And in this house, Ronald Reagan is a hero. End of story!
No cap, Reagan flushing political realism through the toilet and showing its entire world how much of a pack of morons the dominant political realists ideologues were in washington makes him one of the best and effective US Presidents so far.
And then Bush and Obama brought that bullshit right back, only for Trump to make everyone look like morons yet again (The clowning of Russia in Syria and the clowning of Iran in Iraq come to mind) which leads to the current situation where the US is weirdly in ascendency yet again (And no, morons, countries suddenly wanting to join brics and trade in non-dollar currencies is a rear-guard action of trying to consolidate their gains, not them pouncing on a weakened enemy. They now the decline is grinding to a halt and their long term plans must now be reviewed dramatically) because half the reason why the west was in decline was because it was complacent with all the bullshit the non-west did instead of just swinging its dick around like it should.
Mental gymnastics, the comic strip.
>apartheid
Extrenely good
>Saddam
Good
>Union busting
Needed at the time
>star wars
Made sense as a research project, you sometimes need to pursue dead ends to advance technology
>death squads in Central America
Good, frick commies
>raping nuns
Probably a lie or one-off event
>confusing old movies with foreign policy
Almost anyone who says this thinks Zelensky is captain marvel
>trading arms for hostages
Why not, if that's what it takes to save the hostages?
>if that's what it takes to save the hostages?
The hostages he told Iran not to release before the election cause he'd get them a better deal?
Helped him win didn't it?
By that logic, Nixon was right in sabotaging the peace talks for Vietnam, which then caused America to lose the war, because it helped him get elected.
You're a moron.
Or Trump illegally withholding the military aid Ukraine needed to beat back the first wave of the Russian invasion because he was blackmailing them into interfering in the US election on his behalf.
Nixon, Reagan, Trump. Really noticing a pattern here.
Wait, I thought it was the other way around; the Ayatollah intentionally delayed hostage negotiations and release because he wanted to be remembered as the man who ruined a President.
Probably both, but some guy just came out and confessed he was part of an operation to get a message to Iran to delay the release.
>General Alexander Haig
the president pro tempore of the Senate (at the time, Strom Thurmond, Republican), precede the secretary of state in the line of succession. Haig later clarified,
We could have had Strom Thurmond as President.
WWI had some many absolute morons that Haig ends up somewhere in the middle
Imagine how much lives could have been saved by shooting a few fossils who sent people to their deaths in frontal charges over and over.
With all do respect anon, do you think contemporaries would have done better with what they had available at the time?
Shock trooper tactics became revolutionary, was Verdun a better battle because of it?
By 1918 everything was being used in a combined arms manner from the artillery supported infantry push, with cavalry support, and armored pushes, airplanes overhead
But those guys were just dumb for not seeing the obvious answer to what do you do about artillery + machine guns in 1914/15
Frick. You're right.
Yes. Just don’t commit all your forces to that one front because it’s a mountainous frickhole to fight in and have them go somewhere useful like france instead.
Wtf are you on about
Italy and Austria should just go fight in already hugely congested France?
Just make a formal agreement and then not worry about their own border?
Are you mad anon
It's savage but the lines about lions led by wolves and needless frontal assaults fall apart a lot when you look at officer casualty rates and the fact assaults mostly got supported as smartly as the desperately maintained lines of communication could allow by artillery, and by other methods such as sapping
Not to say that there weren't dumb fricks who got men needlessly killed
>Are you mad anon?
Maybe. Personally I think having the entire Italian army committed to such a small front that so heavily favoured defence was a bit of a waste. Instead of attacking the same place over and over and over and over, why not take a defensive stance like the Austrians, and then send the men no longer needed for suicide offensives against the Austirans over to France where they could fight in suicide defences that actually impact the war like Verdun or the Kaisershclacht.
The only Commander on the uni*n side during the was decent was Chamberlain. The north had the Manpower and equipment, the South had the best commanders and soldiers.
Haig got a lot of good Men killed due to complete incompetence and an 17th century mentality. He should of been hung from London bridge over that.
The union generals in the east pretty well and the confederacy had guys like Bragg.
All things considered, the generals and commanders on both sides were pretty good.
>The only Commander on the American side that was decent was Chamberlain.
>Ignoring the Commander who drove a stake through Confederate industrial output and still causes butthurt among traitor apologists to this day.
Why doesn’t Sheridan get the same sort of hate? He was of the same hard war school as Sherman.
Because Sheridan was part of a larger campaign in Virginia which had already seen its good share of combat and you could argue he was following the order of Lincoln and Grant.
Sherman went deep into traitor controlled territory that had been insulated from the war, foraged off the local civilians and targeted their industrial, rather than military output. And because it was deep in traitor territory, all they had to defend against Sherman were some ill trained local militias and back liners who at best could only harass Sherman's men.
Sherman gets hate because he brought the war to the traitors and exposed how powerless and weak they were.
The funny thing was that after Sherman reached Savannah and Fort McAllister to get resupplied by the Union Navy and proceed to march north to link up with Grant, he treated South Carolina worse than Georgia because it was where treason first took root. But he told his men to not be as aggressive while foraging when they reached North Carolina since they were considered reluctant traitors.
A really overlooked part of Sherman's March to Sea is the fact that it wasn't just Sherman expecting to march through and win, he had it very meticulously planned out since he had access to all the census data showing where all the food and corps were for each area, so he'd know where to direct his soldiers to forage to resupply to keep the march going.
You're also forgetting the crucial detail that, likely due to Richmond's precarious position, most of the South's best generals were with Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Bragg managed one real success before Sherman took command, fumbled that, and then totally fricked the defense of Chattanooga (which ultimately set the stage for Sherman's advance into Georgia). Hood made an attempt, which also failed. Johnston mostly puttered around, got one serious engagement out of Sherman at Kennesaw Mountain, and then proceeded to abandon Atlanta and the rest of the state to the Union advance, for fear of being cut off or something. I guess someone forgot to tell him there'd be nothing to fight the war with in the state got laid waste.
Having hiked Chattanooga, the union assaults seem all the more impressive. I’ve lived in the shadow of missionary ridge and I can’t believe the madlads decided to storm it without orders.
>where are we supposed to stop?
>I don’t know, hell I expect.
Missionary Ridge was just the absolutely purest kino of the whole damn war. Like, everybody fricked up everything in that mess.
The one time a fricking uncoordinated, unplanned mass charge up a hill into a dug-in defense actually ended up fricking winning the day.
You could have set the whole thing to circus music.
It makes sense that all of the best generals for the traitors would be on the front lines with Lee, would you really want to waste one of your competent generals on what is rear guard duty?
Hood should take most of the blame for allowing Sherman to reach Atlanta because of how he wasted Wheeler and his cavalry on fruitless raids against Sherman's supply lines, and Johnston was one of the worst choices to send against Sherman because of how he normally errs on the side of caution. So while the campaign had minimal casualties for both sides, as you said, they had nothing to fight for since the land was laid to waste.
The random amusing fact was when the traitors, acting in desperation, started to use torpedoes (Early landmines) to mine the routes Sherman was taking in his march to the sea. It outraged Sherman to the point he had rebel prisoners walk ahead of his men, and if they came across torpedoes, they were made to dig them up because Sherman felt the use of torpedoes was a violation of proper rules of engagement. So there were clearly limits to what Sherman considered proper even in total warfare.
Sherman wanted to bring the pain of the war home but never went out to brutalize anyone. The civil war was mostly conducted morally for the time by both sides, the major exception being areas where there wasn’t consensus on secession, where shit got real ugly real quick. Often forgotten because the lost cause narrative basically erased southern unionists.
>Sherman wanted to bring the pain of the war home but never went out to brutalize anyone.
That's true, the bummers would steal all your food and valuables and burn down your barns and storage sheds, but they wouldn't rape and murder you.
Laughing in Northern Virginian…
Both armies did that shit throughout the war up our way.
If the war is fought on your turf, YOU lose.
Johnston was one of the only bawdhern Generals to command a separate army that knew how the south had to fight in order to win.
They didn’t have the manpower to defend everywhere, so Johnston didn’t try.
He would maneuver from strong position that the Yanks assaulted at great cost back to the next strong position, and let them come at him again.
Politically it wasn’t popular, but charging the Union gun lines as Lee did at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg and Jubal Early did at Cedar Creek accomplished exactly what?
Johnston’s greatest testament came from no less than Sherman after the war.
This is exactly how the Maori fought the British in new Zealand, they built massive earth forts on hills and easily defended strong points and let the British assault them, when the position began to become untenable they would simply abandon it and set up a new one, which the British would duly assault
I guess they made a good go of it, yes?
Easily the most tactically minded and militarily competent natives the Brits ever fought
Thanks for the efforpost. I’d never considered the fact that census data would have been such a boon.
NTA, but here's something interesting about censuses: it took eight years to tabulate the data from the 1880 national census. There was a real danger that the data from 1890 census wouldn't be tabulated until after the 1900 census was conducted, so a machine made by Herman Hollerith that worked via punch cards was used in 1890.
>Griswoldville
The first time single shot weapons came up against the power of semi-automatics
Also-ran whose name got stuck on a tank only tank enthusiasts know about. Lost to history like most Civil War figures today, unfortunately.
Because if Sherman had his way, several hundred men on the Union side would have been hanged, possibly several thousand. And the war would have ended 2 years earlier.
Why? Because there was still trade between the Union and the CSA, food for tobacco and such.
Double based for blowing an opposing general in half.
Also gets credit for predicting the eventual outcome of the war, the course it would take to arrive at that conclusion, and the Confederate challenges which precluded them from victory.
"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!. You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."
The Rebels had no one smart enough to see likewise. How can Confederates claim to have superior Generals when they couldn't even adapt and foresee predictable challenges? It is like giving a driver credit for getting a truck unstuck from mud when they drove into a ditch. The credit should go to the driver who never got stuck in the first place.
>The Rebels had no one smart enough to see likewise
You misjudge them, I suspect. Like Japan before WWII, not going to war meant the abdication of their most cherished dreams. Like Japan, their desires led to them downplaying the risks and the obvious disadvantages and trying anyway.
Plenty of Japanese Generals and Admirals knew the war was unwinnable but were too weak to say so (lest they seem to be unpatriotic or defeatist). We know this from post-war interviews and meeting minutes. Cowardice comes in many forms, including an unwillingness to admit the obvious in a room full of people.
Even if the Rebels were smart enough to see their doom, they were then too cowardly, intransigent, or incompetent to make the point felt among people and politicians. That is the burden of their knowledge, spreading it amongst likeminded people.
Pretty sick of every moron thinking they know better than the people involved when they have the benefit if knowing the outcome of every battle.
The 1942 and 1862 both have one thing in common, it wasnt clear from the performance of the US how the war would go.
It also ignores that the CSA heavily banked on leveraging soft power to their benefit. Not a good move as it turned out but a completely rational one given their information at the time.
>The 1942 and 1862 both have one thing in common, it wasnt clear from the performance of the US how the war would go.
The actual frick are you talking about? The CSA's genius long term survival plan was to drag European powers into the war on their side and then sue for peace and they got assfricked by everyone on earth hating their guts (tens of thousands of Canadians joined up for the North for example) and the Axis was completely fricked logistically from the word go in both theaters.
Neither fricking war was winnable by the losers.
You want an ACTUAL toss up, look at WWI.
The story of CSA diplomats floating to Europe through the blockade only to discover King Cotton is dead & no one wants to talk to them is comedy gold.
I like how Americans manage to discuss every problem as if it were uniquely theirs & not like Europe had serfdom & slavery, abolishing which did not result in autistic screeching & civil war. I'm not saying it worked great, but the fact that you people literally don't think of that is pretty hilarious.
For what it's worth the Russian empire abolished serfdom in a rather c**ty way, where in the short term the nobles made more money, not less, as the freed serfs had to pay for the same land they worked when they were indentured. But still.
>I like how Americans manage to discuss every problem as if it were uniquely theirs & not like Europe had serfdom & slavery, abolishing which did not result in autistic screeching & civil war. I'm not saying it worked great, but the fact that you people literally don't think of that is pretty hilarious<
The truly amazing thing is that the Yankees themselves managed to end Slavery north of the Mason-Dixon Line themselves, (that there WAS Lawful Slavery in the North is something they HATE to be reminded of), without an absolute bloodbath.
Of course, they very likely just sold Toby south to work tobacco or cotton or sugar cane I guess gives them some kind of morally superior standing.
Nations worldwide ended slavery without apocalyptic wars, but we just couldn’t manage it.
I blame Joos, personally.
Davies's secretary of war was an Israelite, as I recall, but I would say it's more to do with the Americans being an extraordinarily excitable people. Which plays out as both a strength and a weakness over time.
That being said, my ancestors were serfs until 1861, so I suppose I'm a European Black folk (and yes, I do have some Polish ancestry, but not exactly what I mean).
But on this point - being one of two backward expansionist powers loosely mimicking Europe in 1860 was really kind of a crap look, and you can sort of see how Americans have a fundamentally different character & therefore the US story is one of colourful absurdism, while the Russian one is that of bleak misery.
Joos were very heavily “into” the Slave Trade, transport, wholesale, retail and financing.
They REALLY don’t like to be reminded of that,but it’s very true.
Thing about Americans is we’re a rather stubborn lot…especially when we get a Bad Idea in our heads.
Ya'll generally want to be the good guys, as national character, just doing it with at the 11th hour, and often with the nuance of an elephant doing ballet. But your heart is in the right place, my dear transatlantic cousin, and the world is better off for it. And this isn't sarcasm.
>I blame Joos, personally.
Stop fricking externalizing your own goddamn failures.
>I like how Americans manage to discuss every problem as if it were uniquely theirs & not like Europe had serfdom & slavery, abolishing which did not result in autistic screeching & civil war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_Revolt
Oh, there were plenty of revolts, and so so much murder in Europe - we're a very bloodsoaked continent. Just also have some nice buildings to show for it, which lets you forget. But this wasnt exactly a war over slavery. And generally - by the 19th century when Britain abolished the Atlantic slave trade and such - it didn't really cause wars, as far as I'm aware.
Now, you could argue how serfdom was bolished in the Russian empire set wheels in motion for the Revolution of 1905, Revolution of 1917 and the Russian Civil War, but that a little indirect, to compare.
>Now, you could argue how serfdom was bolished in the Russian empire set wheels in motion for the Revolution of 1905, Revolution of 1917 and the Russian Civil War, but that a little indirect, to compare.
The first round of serfdom abolition in Russia directly led to multiple serf revolts because of how poorly it was handled.
As for colonial wars. Haiti.
And let's not forget the Texas Revolution. The one the slavers won.
It was uniquely American. No European nation had a political system and regionally institutionalized chattel slavery. Every attempt to not even end slavery but limit its expand by other means was increasingly fought tooth and nail. By 1860 slavery was talked about as God’s greatest gift to mankind and the bedrock of southern society, even mild skepticism of its long term economic viability was met with violence.
I’d also add that European bloodshed definitely played a role in increasing rights.
>No European nation had a political system and regionally institutionalized chattel slavery.
Literally inherited from the British you stupid oaf
>I like how Americans manage to discuss every problem as if it were uniquely theirs
There are some similarities but to bounce off what another anon said, don't underestimate Americans when they declare "I'm gonna die on this hill." I'll sometimes see European commentators writing about Trump supporters (not to pick of them, but the J6 types are these kinda people) in a way that doesn't really understand them, they're not going to just stop doing whatever stupid and self-defeating thing they're doing until they're flat-out beaten. As others have said, stubborn.
The guy saying "they could've bought the slaves" doesn't know anything either. The slaves as a combined asset were worth more than everything else in the country combined except the land itself. The civil war also really started in the western territories before South Carolina seceded to determine the fate of new states entering the union, which would determine the balance of national power, so Lincoln's election by a combined bloc of northern states on a platform of halting the westward expansion of slavery was tantamount to a declaration of war. The Democrats also split into northern and southern parties which helped make this possible.
There's also an argument that halting slavery's expansion would doom the enterprise anyways due to a sorta economic logic that happens where you can't really grow our own domestic economy anymore with slavery, and thus have to expand so you can convert states like South Carolina into exporting slaves to new slave states in the west... basically turning the more built-up states into slave-breeding factories... yeah. And the Southern slave holders wanted to expand it because that's how they could expand their enterprise, and because the alternative would mean eventually losing their assets, which is what happened anyways in a big war.
>The CSA's genius long term survival plan was to drag European powers into the war on their side and then sue for peace
Worked for Washington, didn't it?
>Worked for Washington, didn't it?
No. The French and Indian War completely fricked the colonies when Britain came collecting on the war debts.
>it wasnt clear from the performance of the US how the war would go
Despite setbacks, Midway and Torch went off pretty well, so I'm not sure there was that much doubt.
The people in charge of the South knew exactly what they were doing.
The problem with southern generals is how little they cared for logistics. Did a fair bit fight well in battle, yes. However, you cannot win a war without food, water, or ammunition. The economy at home also has to be stable with little inflation.
Amateurs focus on battles, winners focus on logistics. Look at Russia right now for your proof.
The fact that they call this particular bit of rolling traitor trolling 'General Grant' instead of 'General Sherman ' is a disgrace
Grant is at least an admirable figure, Sherman is difficult to defend.
Unless of course youre baiting on PrepHole.
Sherman was effective. There is no moral obligation to opponents. Morality is for dealing with friends and is subjective and expedient.
There is if those oponents are civilians that supposedly belong to the union youre attempting to preserve.
Cool novel edgy take, thanks for sharing.
By their own choice, they were no longer part of the Union.
Civil wars are a distinction, tbh.
While I don't have huge qualms about the total war all citizens are enemy combatants approach against foreign powers, I'd argue that one should treat one's brethren with a little more mercy. The willingness of some in the Union to do so post-war is part of the reason the South only harbors grumblers these days, as opposed to the ever-simmering pot of hatred that is the Balkans.
Traitors aren't "brethren". It's questionable if they're even worth being considered human.
Most of the Sherman-worship here is entirely due to federal employees. In fact, it seems to be a single guy doing it. I don't think he's even with any alphabet agencies, he's some pencil-pushing desk jockey who hates half the country for some personal reason or another.
>Sherman is difficult to defend
In the Indian Wars, sure. Shit on him. In the Civil War? Pillaging for supplies was standard practice for detached units, his operation was targeted and effective, and there's no evidence he ever ordered any violence against civilians or unnecessary theft.
Hell his own troops arrested and even shot rioting troops at Columbia to protect the people and town. Sherman was a tactician and an effective one. He didn't burn the south because he enjoyed it.
But to be clear, he did enjoy it.
>there's no evidence he ever ordered any violence against civilians or unnecessary theft.
Do you really expect anyone to believe this bullshit.
Its so easy to waffle around whats considered "necessary"
>Do you really expect anyone to believe this bullshit.
Given we have actual physical records of orders he gave as well as orders transmitted by commanders under him, plenty of documentation of his men policing their own, and it would have been actively detrimental to a forced march to dick around looting and raping, yes?
You dumb frickwit. This was the mid 1800s and documented to shit, not some prehistory war in Persia.
>Its so easy to waffle around whats considered "necessary"
Yeah, I'm sure he was having his men loot washtubs like some sort of proto-orcs. It was food.
Honestly the tales of his march are overblown hearsay spread by word of mouth as terrified civvies who never saw a union regular panicked over what they thought’d happen if Sherman showed up. His main targets in the march were the rail network, plantations and farms because he wanted to cripple the confederate war effort and economy. Of course they looted farms for food but that’s just standard raiding practice. The worst of the violence, AKA the rape and robbery was done by bummers, who were stragglers Sherman didn’t have any control over. His actual foraging parties, with a few exceptions of course, left the actual homes of civilians alone. Hell in Special Field Order 120 he even forbade Union troops from entering homes, and it makes sense why he would. Most of his army was busy fighting skirmishes, destroying railroads and plantations, or yknow, marching. So making sure his actual foraging parties operated efficiently was essential to keeping his men fed. Every minute a forager might spend looting a home was a minute he could’ve spent searching for more livestock or crops to feed the army.
Born and raised in Texas here.
Sheman should have kept burning until the traitors were all dead. Unironically.
150 years of MUH LOST CAUSE and Jim Crow is the reason for all the problems you homosexuals blame on "Black folk".
Weird how when black people get money all of a sudden the only crime in the area is done by whites.
Why do you hate lawful Private Property, anon?
If you wanted our slaves, why not just make an offer to buy them?
Once they’re legally yours, you could have done what you wanted with them.
Hell, you could also have Eminent Domained their asses and paid Fair Market Value for hem to their rightful owners,
Instead you decided to stack up dead White men like cordwood and burn down wonderful homes and farms and cities.
Stupid fricking Yankee scalawag. Nation of cheapskates that ignore citizens’ rights as they see fit.
The South started the war. Read a book.
Literally any book tbh, rebs are fricking illiterate
Ummm, no.
South Carolina started the war. Lincoln used the firing on Sumter as the pretext to escalate the war to ALL Southern states in secession.
The South wasn’t and ant illiterate, they were STUBBORN.
Yankees, on the other hand, were idiots. You SURE saved a lot of money fighting the ACW, (and losing the Civil Peace afterwards), rather than just buying our slaves from us.
Stepped over dollars to pick up Pennie’s….
The CSA had been declared months before "South Carolina" started the war. Protip: Don't form a military under a single commander-in-chief if you don't want to be treated as a united enemy force in the event war breaks out.
>Nobody ever really tried did they?
How is that relevant? If your dumbass idea were worth trying, it would have been.
>How is that relevant? If your dumbass idea were worth trying, it would have been.<
It was actually discussed before the 1860 election, but the Joos balked at the cost it would have meant.
Then they got the bill for the ACW…
Theres an old observation about the Vietnam war that it would have been cheaper for us just to provide every asiatic that was inclined towards Maoism with $10k, (in 1966 dollars).
With that kind of bank back then, who would WANT to be Communist?
It would have been more cost-effective per combatant neutralized than building and shipping and fueling and manning helicopters for them to keep shooting down…
>just pay people money, and they won't kill you
certified mong
You're an absolute dumbfrick so let me point something out to you.
1. Most of the South wouldn't have given up their slaves no matter how much you paid them if the South were being emptied of slaves because the less slaves there are, the more valuable the remaining slaves become.
2. They sure as shit didn't want a massive increase in freed Blacks in the South, and likewise wouldn't have stood for a collapse of slave labor needed for the farms there, so many more would have refused to give up slaves just to keep their industries running. What a slave was valued at at the time was generally less than the value of the labor they provided (or else people wouldn't fricking buy slaves).
3. "Runaway slave patrols" were a thing. That targeted free Black people. So there would have been a continued influx of new slaves even as more were born from those not sold into freedom.
4. So the only way to "end slavery by engaging in slave trade" would be forced mass release with compensation. An absolute hard end to slavery.
5. The South thinking an absolute hard end to slavery was coming was what they listed for why they were fricking seceding.
You are truly an absolute mongoloid that cannot see past the tip of your own stunted penis.
Many such cases.
>
1. Most of the South wouldn't have given up their slaves no matter how much you paid them if the South were being emptied of slaves because the less slaves there are, the more valuable the remaining slaves become.<
Are you a psychic? Do you know what people back then would or would not have done? How?
Do you know how much money your father made every time he sucked a dick or offered ass?
I bet the answer would surprise you…
>2. They sure as shit didn't want a massive increase in freed Blacks in the South, and likewise wouldn't have stood for a collapse of slave labor needed for the farms there, so many more would have refused to give up slaves just to keep their industries running. What a slave was valued at at the time was generally less than the value of the labor they provided (or else people wouldn't fricking buy slaves).<
Neither did the North, but it took the stupid flickers about a hundred years to figure THAT one out,
But why do you think there would have been hordes of Free Black folks running around? Would you have NOT deported them?
You would have BOUGHT them. They would have been lawful Government Property and thus they could have been sent back to Africa r shipped to Boston and Minnesota and Chicago's and Detroit, (what eventually happened less the de jure GI ownership part).
>3. "Runaway slave patrols" were a thing. That targeted free Black people. So there would have been a continued influx of new slaves even as more were born from those not sold into freedom<
Nonsense.GI-owned Black folks would have been lawful Government Property and there would have been very stiff penalties for stealing from the Feds.
>Are you a psychic? Do you know what people back then would or would not have done? How?
People wrote shit down including their thoughts on ending slavery.
>Do you know how much money your father made every time he sucked a dick or offered ass?
Sorry, m8, I don't go to your church. Sounds like your days as a choir boy were quite interesting though.
>But why do you think there would have been hordes of Free Black folks running around? Would you have NOT deported them?
Ah, so now it's slave trade and exile, and we're ballooning the costs to include the mass emptying of the country of its labor and the associated transportation. Wasn't your argument that this would be cheaper than just kicking the South's ass? That's already over cost.
And you ignored the South wouldn't stand for the loss of labor.
>Nonsense.GI-owned Black folks would have been lawful Government Property and there would have been very stiff penalties for stealing from the Feds.
>Why couldn't you end slavery by not ending slavery
Hmmm
Considering the CSA went to war to protect the institution of slavery, and enshrined it into the confederate constitution, I'd argue they wouldn't be keen to give up slavery even if compensated at that point. Their economy was so based on slave labor that it would nearly destroy them like it did reconstruction.
Another fear was servile insurrection if many blacks became free. A fair bit of Confederate soldiers, even though they didn't own slaves feared such a thing. They feared a race war.
>Theres an old observation about the Vietnam war that it would have been cheaper for us just to provide every asiatic that was inclined towards Maoism with $10k, (in 1966 dollars).
>With that kind of bank back then, who would WANT to be Communist?
This may be the single dumbest idea I've every had the displeasure of hearing.
Did you know that over 5000 helicopters were lost by US Admed a forces in the Vietnam War?
This doesn’t don’t shit we gave ARVN,
Want to guess what it cost us to buy them and ship them there and fuel them and man them with aircrew?
Stupid fricker.
>we can win every war by foreseeing how much it will cost, and paying the enemy that much not to fight it
not him, but the
>I'm Gonna Pay You 100 Drahms to Frick Off
has been used very often through history and quite sucessfully at that.
Sure it's not easily applicable to modern conflicts but still Marshall Planning the frick out of Vietnam would be an interesting thought experiment
Germany tried to Marshall Plan Putin. It didn't work.
because putin went full into a delusional Peter the Great/ successor of the Soviet Union LARP instead of sticking with being a kleptocratic glowBlack person he always was.
The concept itself works, just look at South Korea, Taiwan not to mention Spain, Chile or several others.
People forget how many dictatorships we used to have not too long ago
>screeches about Joos
>can be paid off with $10k in 1966 dollars
Well, Nathaniel, we know the price tag on this moron, at least. The only question is whether it's actually worth the gelt.
Nobody ever ended slavery by engaging in slave trade.
Nobody ever really tried did they?
>Let me buy all your slaves
>ALL
>all
>Okay, I can let you have all my for sale stock, except the field hands and housemaids I need to run my economy
>No I want literally all of them
>ALL?!
>down to the last little newborn
>well, NO
See, you e got to get out of the box your thinking is in, anon.
You pay a premium for young and fertile slaves FIRST.
This depletes the breeding stock, leaving only the old Mammies and cotton tops, (that are too old for field hand service).
This whole enterprise, much like the war, isn’t something that’s going to be over and done with ina few weeks or months.
It would have been a gradual process, and rightly so as the Agribusiness of the day needed the time to adapt to the new realities, (and develop the tech necessary to address the new non-Slave market conditions).
It’s childish and unrealistic of you to expect that it would be anything otherwise after hundreds of years of the Peculiar Institution.
In its defense, it would have obviated the need for digging holes in the ground for burying dead White men after Fredericksburg, Antietam and Gettysburg and Stone’s River,,,,
That is, quite literally, how Britain ended slavery in the Empire
>lawful Private Property
Not anymore Black person lover. There's a whole continent full of them, go there if you want slaves so badly.
What in Hell are you babbling about you half-wit?
YOU’RE the one that is foaming at the mouth and licking windows about my inefficient old lawn tractor and leaf blower.
I’d have been perfectly happy to sell them all to you, given the right price and a reasonable alternative to keep the sugar cane plantation running profitably.
It wasn’t PERSONAL. And owning slaves was a right total PITA. I’d rather not have Black folks living on my property if it could have been helped.
For frick’s sakes…your free-floating inner hatred has eclipsed your reasoning,
Are you by chance a Black person, sir?
I wonder who's behind this post?
Yeah, no shit.
Why do you think owls are begging my post, illiterate-Anon?
>illiterate
>can't spell "behind"
Are you using a translator?
>150 years of MUH LOST CAUSE and Jim Crow is the reason for all the problems you homosexuals blame on "Black folk".
Black crime was like an order of magnitude lower under Jim Crow. That didn't cause problems it prevented them
>Weird how when black people get money all of a sudden the only crime in the area is done by whites.
The murder rate in Prince George's County, MD, known for having tons of middle class blacks working for dem gubermint jerbs, is still like 13 per 100k.
Prince George's County's violent crime rate is below the national average.
National average is 7.8, and remember more than half of that is from blacks
I said violent crime rate you dipshit. And the county is 59% Black. Almost like there's factors that go into violent crime other than fricking race.
>I said violent crime rate you dipshit.
Why ignore the most important and most reliably reported violent crime?
>And the county is 59% Black. Almost like there's factors that go into violent crime other than fricking race
Sure there are other factors, but none of them are as important as race. Rich blacks are way more violent than poor whites
Inb4
>well just because they're more homicidal doesn't mean they're more violent
>rich blacks are way more violent than poor whites
are you fricking schizophrenic or have you never lived near poor white people
I have. There wasn't much violence beyond barfights and one guy beating his wife.
We also have data to back it up. Just pick any dirt poor white county and look at the crime rates.
But it looks like you're just leftypol playing whataboutism
Don't argue even wealthy Blacks are more violent than whites, call out a specific Black majority county to prove this, and then fricking b***h when someone points out the violent crime rate there is beneath the national average. You look like a dumbass.
Grant is an admirable man, but I'm not sure I'd say figure.
After all, he deserves some of the blame for his legendarily corrupt presidency.
I’m a Southerner, but that’s pretty cool.
But that's entirely on brand for Sherman where he'd want all the credit to go to Grant.
Like after he took Savannah, congress wanted to make him a general of equal standing to Grant and Sherman refused outright.
Cope and seethe, Yank. You haven't been majority within the US Armed Forces since the end of the civil war, you don't have the moral ground to point fingers and call others traitors.
Sherman was a pussy who constantly shifted between acting like some billy badass for burning people's houses and then crying because he regretted killing civilians.
His "adversary" (his forces were still combat effective and he harried Sherman at every turn) facing him at Georgia returned to military service (after serving in Congress no less) and kept killing people until they made him retire. This man served alongside Teddy Roosevelt in Cuba and General Otis in the Philippines. For the latter, he said any and all war crimes Otis was accused of were fake and the stupid Flips did it to themselves to make Americans look bad.
He also helped along our Special Relationship thing with Britain while he was in Congress, so he indirectly helped set us up to fight the Germans later on.
Didn't Early also serve the US in the Spanish-American war and the Philippine Insurgency?
Having grown up in georgia, and as a descendant of grant, you yankee gays cant even begin to understand the butthurt over sherman
These are a lot of words to say 'vae victis.'
Desu, I think Meade deserves a spot for truly besting Lee at Gettysburg. As one of the only Union generals to do so, it instantly shoots him to the top.
>but Lee got away tho
So? Beating Lee at all is still better than most of them could manage.
Grant was relentless, which was ultimately what it took to win the war, so he deserves some credit for that, but I don't think he was a tactical or strategic heavyweight. Sherman's in a similar spot, though I think he was somewhat better than Grant.
I know pitifully little about Sheridan, but since his efforts work hand in hand with Grant's total war approach, he may deserve a spot too.
Re: Grant and "I don't think he was a tactical or strategic heavyweight."
You realize Picrel is still studied as one of the greatest examples of maneuver warfare ever conducted, right?
Grant was a beast moron. The other general got jeolous and shit talked him, and then that whole presidency abortion, both of which ruined his reputation. Oh and him not trusting and expelling israelites
Frick off traitor.
Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, Thomas, Chamberlain, Buford, Etc..
Have fun with Bragg, Pillow, Johnston, Holmes, Pickett, and Hood.
Wilt Chamberlain is also the only person to score 100 points in a basketball game
The popular narrative vilifies Haig, but don't forget that he oversaw the reforms which modernised warfare in WW1. Had he opposed them, rather than eased them as he actually did, then you can call him a bad general.
>The only Commander on the uni*n side during the was decent was Chamberlain.
You'll get a ton of deserved shit for this dumbassery, but Grierson basically crippled Mississippi completely during a diversionary cavalry raid where he only lost 3 men.
So if that isn't even rising to the level of decent, the rebs must have been flaming piles of manure.
Because nobody's brought him up yet to rebut you, Meigs, was also a key figure in the north that the South wishes it could have had an equivalent to.
Also he did a top tier historic owning of Lee.
Haig's BEF took less casualties then any of the other combatants on the western front, modernised faster and more fully than anyone else, and inflicted the most casualties on the Germans in the last year of the war. He has a mixed record for sure, but really can't be called bad when compared to the other generals of the time.
In his own lifetime he was considered a hero.
Oh forgot to add "that b***h" was McClellan. He also referred to "the Original Gorilla" which is pretty lulzy
McClellan wasn't great but he certainly isn't in the running for worst general of all time, he's not even close to the worst general of the Civil war .
He got the Union army unfricked after Bull run, and while he was far too cautious for strategic command, he did tend to win tactically. He also never got his army massacred in a pointless charge.
Not attacking and keeping your soldiers alive is not as bad as attacking in a moronic way over and over and getting your soldiers slaughtered
lincoln didn't feel the same way about being so timid that you let the enemy retreat and regroup
He would have been even angrier if the army was dead after running into an actual well defended fort.I'm not saying that he was a good general but there were worse ones.Also is there a reason he didn't send scouts to see if he could take it?Pretty sure they had binoculars as well.
yeah, that was kind of my point as well.
he didn't verify.
the confederates all left, put up a bunch of fake cannons, and he just decided
>NOPE.EXE
and let them get away.
Crassus is a classic, Luigi is another classic, but there have been plenty of military morons especially in Imperial Russian history. Part of what makes Luigi notable is that no one seems to have at any point decided he shouldn’t be in command, and most wartards don’t last particularly long, either dying like Crassus or relieved from command.
Francisco Solano López is my vote for biggest moron. Couldn’t win a battle if the enemy was blind and moronic, forced his men to do moronic shit constantly (rush siege walls through cactus without any ladders!), was entirely responsible for the war of triple alliance, was a complete moron politically and widely mocked in his time across the region, and is completely responsible for destroying his country to the present day. Not just territorially but economically and demographically. He wiped out a huge portion, I believe literally the majority, of males in his country and triggered a massive famine. He had kids as young as twelve fighting. He conscripted everyone. He was an awful strongman dictator with insane laws including IIRC banning education for most citizens.
The other side of the war was also dysfunctional in the extreme, politically unstable, at least mildly moronic and had extremely long logistical lines through inhospitable jungle terrain. They literally were supposed to rotate who was in supreme command (and failed at that). They were at best a barely competent mess. And they annihilated Paraguay. Paraguay lost HALF its population during the war. Half. In six years. Against an alliance of countries who didn’t even like each other, in a war he started and perpetuated. I’ve heard estimates that less than 30k males over 15 were alive in Paraguay after the war. The total population before the war was about 525k. To this day it’s the poorest place in South America, except for maybe Venezuela.
Oh, and of course the Paraguayans worship this fat c**t because they’re fricking morons.
Crassus at least was able to beat Spartacus
Yeah, and then Pompey swung by and hogged all the glory, lel. Crassus never got a break, he was rich as frick but money couldn't buy respect in Roman society back then, everyone talked mad shit about him even before he died like a b***h.
>Crassus never got a break
he was by far the least triumphant of the Triumvirate
>the war of triple alliance
Absolute kino, most people forget that this war even happened but everything about it sounds insane.
Imagine being one of the few men to survive the war
Found the brazilian.
Remeber that this guy´s army was in Brazil for a month before the goverment found out.
Indeed such are the people of my country, could be worst like the Falklands
>In 1868, when the allies were pressing him hard, he convinced himself that his Paraguayan supporters had actually formed a conspiracy against his life. Thereupon, several hundred prominent Paraguayan citizens were seized and executed by his order, including his brothers and brothers-in-law, cabinet ministers, judges, prefects, military officers, bishops and priests, and nine-tenths of the civil officers, together with more than two hundred foreigners, among them several members of the diplomatic legations (the San Fernando massacre).[22] During this time, he also had his 70-year-old mother flogged and ordered her execution, because she revealed to him that he had been born out of wedlock.[24]
>when you're so shitty that your allies look like they're conspiring against you when they're actually all just simultaneously calling you the fricking moron that you are
>you flip out like the moron gorilla you are and kill a bunch of your family and friends
Its actually amazing he didn't die via assassination and instead on the battle field.
South America is such a strange land. Nations instantly take form because the Prince of Portugal wanted to be King of Brazil once a couple revolutionaries suggested he should do that, Paraguay breaks the political compass and stomps on it, and Bolivia maintains a navy despite being totally landlocked out of sheer butthurt.
>war of the triple alliance
Alright, book recommendations anyone?
Paraguay should have just been annexed.
The War of the Triple Alliance was such a batshit insane conflict. It was like 3 Linebackers ganging up to beat a Chihuahua to death, but for real tho, that Chihuahua was annoying as frick and had it coming. But our Army here in Brazil was so unprepared for this war that we got into a massive denbt with England cause the Brazilian Empire only gave a shit about the Navy and the Army pretty much amounted to toothless farmers with no shoes and old as frick muzzleloaders. And Paraguay was somehow in far worse state at the beginning of the conflict.
As I said - everyone involved was a moron. It was like three big downies who hated each other beating a smaller downie to death because the smaller downie started throwing his own shit at them.
Again, the triple alliance was supposed to rotate their fricking supreme commander. They were supposed to take fricking turns - and at multiple points the c**t in charge just refused to. The Brazilians had bizarre political turmoil at home and nearly went bankrupt and they had to trek through hundreds of miles of some of the least hospitable terrain on earth. The argies were of course argies and the Uruguayans were small and iirc very inexperienced. The argies and Brazilians hated each other. It should have been a disaster for them to go to war the way they did
But Lopez was simply too moronic for them not to lose.
I only know a bit about this war but you fail to mention Paraguay was allied with Uruguay and thats why the war started. Also Argentina was not supposed to ally with Brazil they were mortal enemies you would not have expected it if you were there back then.
I think he knew Paraguay was destined to be a landlocked buffer zone puppet of Brazil and Argentina unless they along with Uruguay solidified their hold on the coast and became a third power player in the region between Brazil and Argentina. But WHY did paraguayans fight so hard to the death for him? what were the normal people fighting for? since the victors write history the narrative we get is Lopez was a tyrannical butthole end of story but i feel like something is missing.
I gotta read more about this war/time period. Theres a lot more to it than meets the eye.
Paraguay was not allied with anyone. Uruguay was a very unstable place and more of a territory than a nation back then. Originally it was a part of the Spanish colony of Rio de la Plata, which extended into current Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil. The territory changed hands a lot of times after independence wars started, being part of Spain, Brazil, the many proto-Argentine governments of Rio de la Plata and sometimes semi-independent.
At the time of the war, Uruguay was split into two main factions, whites and reds. Whites were allied with the federal movements of Rio de la Plata and ultimately wanted to join a federalist Argentina, but Argentina itself wasn't always in control of the federalists and the federalist party itself sometimes had internal quarreling, so whites and Argentina weren't always allies. Reds mostly wanted to be independent under a unitary government like those of Europe, but many times allied with Brazil since they were funded by external powers like Portugal, Brazil and England.
In the middle of this conflict Paraguay claimed to want to "help" Uruguay free itself from foreign powers (keep it for themselves) and Lopez sent letters to both Brazil and Argentina saying military action in the literal warzone would be seen as an act of war against Paraguay and its "allies". Then they sent an army to Argentina with the intention of crossing the Uruguay river. At around the same time they started seizing Brazilian ships in the Amazon river. No country would have let that fly, especially from a state that weak and small by comparison.
Also both countries tried diplomatic means first, as they feared marching to Paraguay would weaken them enough to let the other side win. Lopez knew this and played off it quite well at the start.
As for why Paraguayans fought teeth and bone for him, I'm guessing it was something simple like tribal affiliation or something. They're not really the only example of this, Arabs and Africans do it all the time.
Cool thanks, sorry that I stated Paraguay was allied with Uruguay I misremembered. like I said i only know a little bit but i want to learn about this war. It and parguay fascinates me somehow.
You could make the case for picrel. Very few generals are ever given the opportunity to botch more than one war, but Tommy "Let's allow the Taliban to flee into Pakistan unhindered" Franks (know to his men as "Ol' Forgot to Plan for What Happens *After* We Reach Bagdad") managed to frick up two major wars in less than 18 months. The dude played a major part in embroiling the US in forever wars. And while Iraq and Afghanistan might not have ever been winnable, this dopey motherfricker guaranteed they'd be unwinnable.
Franks should have been executed for his incompetence.
If there was one thing the Soviet Union did right, it was punishing incompetence with a bullet to the head.
so why did no one shoot Stalin then?
Unironically because of twenty years of state terror that murdered, imprisoned, or intimidated all possible opposition.
Beria got him in the end.
Fun fact: when Hitler first launched Barbarossa, and the Soviet Army started getting ROFLstomped, Stalin basically just stayed in his room for a couple of days because he was convinced that somebody would come in at any second and shoot him for being so incompetent.
Instead, somebody came in and said "we need you, we don't know what to do now." He couldn't believe that they had let him stay in charge.
He repaid the kindness by killing most of the people that supported him during the period.
they don't want to get shot afterward
Because poison is easier.
>If there was one thing the Soviet Union did right, it was punishing incompetence with a bullet to the head.
Problem: there are no competent Commies, and the most incompetent ones worm their ways to the top.
>Problem: there are no competent Commies
Say what you will about Fidel Castro but he did lead troops in the field, including during the Bay of Pigs.
Wasn't Blyukher supposed to be really good before they purged him? or was it some other general fighting the Japanese?
> punishing incompetence
Stalin purged a dude because he was allergic to alcohol and couldn’t drink with him. And they purged their wives and kids too typically.
>If there was one thing the Soviet Union did right, it was punishing incompetence with a bullet to the head
Yea, but it was mostly punishing perceived disloyalty and commanders that got too popular with the soldiers. Often because of their competence.
Voroshilov set the Red Army back years during and after the Purges by insisting on keeping traditional cavalry and purging reformers who wanted to mechanize, then bungled both the Winter War and then the initial defense of Leningrad. He and the similarly incompetent Budyonny got a comfy retirements due to being Stalin's old civil war buddies.
Let's be specific, he screamed at Tukhachevsky's trial that dissolving horse cavalry was treason.
That being said, Tukhachevsky was also a massive c**t.
As a sidenote, my greatuncle was the first Red Cavalry commander, met Lenin & was apparently liked by Stalin, who allowed him to speak his mind openly - so wasn't shot in 1938 despite being an ethnic minority (Baltic). And with all this in mind I have a family photo of him & in his family, taken in Moscow, taken on the 20th anniversary of national independence (not Soviet, his land of birth).
t.-moron
Agreed. Could you imagine Schwarzkopf doing gulf war 2? It would have been real fricking neat. Like ruler to a made bed kind of neat.
I remember reading his autobiography where he goes
>we had an old war plan from 2000 where we were planning what to do if Iraq collapsed
>that called for 300,000 men and it would have been ridiculously expensive, fortunately I modernized it to only require 100,000 men
Franks wanted to retire after Afghanistan. Who doesn’t want to retire after a big win. Bush and Rumsfeld asked him to stay on for Iraq. He agreed but said he would only stay for the invasion and leave the reconstruction to someone else. Bush and Rummy stupidity agreed.
Just throwing random generals under the bus is going to take another five years to actually dickweed.
The US won both wars militarily but lost them politically. Boost troop numbers, get Cleetus and Tay'Shawn in uniform and issue a free fire policy. These people are barbarians, they're not the Germans or the Japanese or even Koreans. The only thing they've ever understood is sheer strength.
the thought of what you smell like is so revolting i will never eat a dorito again
Little Mac just didnt seem to believe in the war tbh
Luigi Cadorna was a great military leader. Not many generals can say they have fought same battle 12 times over.
Nice, a new Luigi for the collection.
>Not many generals can say they have fought same battle 12 times over.
kek
As other anons have already mentioned, WW1 is full of contenders, of which I would humbly submit the Pasha brothers who fricked up so hard and so constantly that it ended the Ottoman Empire
However outside of that particular conflict I am unironically nominating Putin. Sure he's not a direct commander but it was his army and there is no fricking way this invasion went ahead without his say-so so he gets primary responsibility for the colossal frickup that ensued
We made it 12 posts before some Black person had to turn it into a ukraine thread
cry more vatBlack person
kys
homosexual Black person lover.
NTA but Ukraine was probably the biggest military blunder of the 21st century.
>russia already below replacement level birthrates and disproportionately lacking working age men since they are most likely to emigrate
>start a war and trigger the worst brain drain since the collapse of the USSR; completely gut tech base by a mix of punitive conscription against online protestors and scaring off anyone who can possibly flee to anywhere else on earth
>reveal "modernized" military to be nothing but enough tanks for the parades, fail to supply troops within a day's walk of Russian border, promptly exhaust supplies of modern equipment and be forced to buy back soviet giveaways
>lose tons of equipment that is effectively irreplaceable since Russia cannot manufacture replacements and is unable to trade with countries who could supply them
>military shown to be completely incapable of handling even second line NATO equipment
>economy reduced to third world tier mono resource export dependence
>still haven't captured kiev even though you could drive a fricking car from there to moscow in less than a day
Even if they killed every single Ukranian to have ever lived and had tanks all the way to the Polish border at this point Russia has lost everything. They can no longer bluster with military power, Europe immediately moved to remove energy dependence on them, NORDSTREAM II is now out of commission with no prospective repair date, they have no legitimacy to act as an arbiter between other nations.. Even S*rbs are turning on them and making as much distance as they can on the global scene. All of that for what amounts to nothing.
that italian moron admiral who lost a sea battle with a fleet of mainly steam driven ironclads against that Austrian admiral with a fleet of mainly wooden sailing ships?
Di persano? Tbf the austrian also had ironclads, the italians had like 4 or 5 more. The main problem was the horrendous lack of coordination and the mutual rivalry between commanders that eventually caused them to break formation and be thoroughly fricked by what were mostly, ironically, italians from croatia. As it is always the case, the greatest enemy of italy are its generals.
Of it makes you feel better he got spanked hard by the senate, stripped of his rank and pension, and died in poverty. He managed to jeopardise the third war of indipendence, singlehandedly. Quite a feat.
halleck and lincoln are the ones to blame, not mac. also false intel from the pinkertons.
I've heard both that the Pinkerton reports were utter shit and that they were mostly accurate but McClellan extrapolated exaggerated numbers from them and don't know which is true
Coming from an old union family I'm biased to shit on the Pinkertons but McClellan also seems like he was a paranoid cowardly loser.
George McClellan was so incompetent that it became actual treason and should have been hanged
Lapin/Muradoc/Prigozhin/Gerasimov
Lloyd Fredendall got the first defeat in the first major engagement the US was a part of against the Germans, for some reason he’d use his own made up code that he let nobody in on when giving orders and never filled anyone in. Literally every other general officer gave him the benefit of the doubt and he consistently proved himself to be a shitty combat officer
Then again, he's another case of shitty frontline officer who after getting sacked from frontline command proved himself a perfectly competent and productive REMF.
He also insisted on using engineers to build him a heavily fortified bunker way beyond German air raid range.
>Fredendall was given to speaking and issuing orders using his own slang, such as calling infantry units "walking boys" and artillery "popguns." Instead of using the standard military map grid-based location designators, he made up confusing codes such as "the place that begins with C."
Neil Breen vibes
McClellan is over hated. Most of the people b***hing about him are only using hind sight and 150+ years of history giving them omniscient knowledge of the situation.
Case in point Antietam. morons will argue that he should have gone charging after Lee while ignoring the fact that his Army was massively short on food, shoes, and clothing as the weather was starting to turn to fall. He didn't pursue because his Army physically couldn't and the War Department was too corrupt and incompetent to fulfill supply requisitions.
what a crock of shit, as if the confederates weren't in an even worse position and much farther away from their base of supply AND dealing with hauling a gigantic amount of casualties as they retreated. That was a chance to end the fricking war, it's a situation where you absolutely keep pressing the enemy no matter what.
None of this fricking matters anyway because McClellan proved that he's a fricking coward multiple times before including during the fricking battle itself.
McClellan wasn't a grrat general. Great administrator, sure, but I'd only put him in charge of a brigade if anything.
Sherman and Grant were better. Hell Burnside was better.
I will defend my homie Burnside to my dying breath. Dude would've 100% shitposted on /k/ if it existed back then, all he wanted to do was build guns in peace but he got sucked into Lincoln's political schemes and couldn't handle the life.
Frick Meade for ruining his redemption arc at The Crater too
Agreed
Despite that he didn’t lose the war. He didn’t see his army destroyed or scattered or horribly degraded. He wasn’t good, but he certainly wasn’t among the worst tbh.
If you bring Luigi Cadorna, you should have Franz von Hotzendorf to accompany him
Absolutely not. Luigi is the guy who makes frickers like Conrad von Hotzendorf and Alexander Samsonov look like geniuses because of how much of a shitshow he was.
>Samsonov
Guy is an icon of military defeat. Whenever I think of decisive defeat I think about him offing himself in the woods. His name is etched in my heart as the figure to whom I can think of and say "Well, at least I didn't frick up this badly".
George McClellan would have been a fine "Supreme Commander" like Eisenhower, responsible only for planning shit and not actually implementing it. He understood how to train troops, build morale, equip, and supply an Army. He knew when and where to fight and how to plan grand strategy. He had lots of good attributes. Unfortunately he was also unable to actually command troops in the field and implement his vision.
Luigi Cadorna should never have been able to rack up his long list of failures. He wasn't even that bad, he just had very few positive attributes as a military commander and the Italian army in WW1 was meme-tier bad to start. The fact that he was able to continue to massacre his own troops for so long is a testament to Italy's ineptitude. Any other country would have removed him from command far earlier.
Haig was fine. So was Ludendorff. So was Joffre. They weren't butchers, stupid, inept, etc.. they were just stuck fighting an industrial war with lots of casualties. They each get a ton of blame for fighting an attritional conflict they had no alternative to.
William Hull is my vote. His incompetence is the reason Canada is not a US state.
Finally, someone who actually understands WWI.
The fact people look at a continuous, unbroken defensive line stretching from the Channel to Switzerland, and still carp about muh frontal assaults is a testament to the general permeation of absolute garbage info about any war outside of those truly interested in the subject.
Sometimes I shudder thinking about what moronation I have unwittingly spread.
To be fair there were some genuine idiots who couldn’t understand machine guns or rapid fire artillery. But by and large the problem was the opposite, you had officers on both sides clever enough to counter what innovations were made.
They understood it well enough, they just couldn't effectively combat it. They shelled the frick out of the Germans in the Somme, thinking that the German front would be utterly destroyed and most defensers killed.
They launch the attack and it turns out they were wrong.
The Rothschilds sold the attack plans to the Germans. They knew everything planned to the minute, even the types of shells to be used on each section of trench. The only reason the British Empire managed to survive the war at all was because they struck a deal with the zionists to allow the recreation of Israel and in return neutral party shipments were turned off crippling the German economy. The Rothschild connection to this third party embargo was a major factor in post-Versailles revisionism 'stab in the backers'. Look at tonnage rates through Dutch ports for an easy example of continuous trade between both powers being facilitated by the banks. Post-Balfour declaration, that tonnage drops to its pre-war normal again.
And the shelling was hampered by the fact that Britain wasn't ready for an industrial war, so quality control at munitions factories wasn't up to snuff by 1916. Unacceptable numbers of shells fired during the Somme bombardment failed to detonate, or detonated too early, thanks to faulty fuses.
Add to that the fact that the British army as it existed pre-war had been virtually wiped out by this point, and the guys sent to the Somme were the mostly green recruits of Kitchener's New Army.
Then add to that the fact that the Somme, as initially conceived, was supposed to be a limited attack to aid the main effort of the year, to be launched by the French. It became the main Entente effort after Falkenhayn spoiled their plans by attacking Verdun in February, and so the Somme went from a sideshow to a desperate attempt to take some of the pressure off the French to keep the whole fricking thing from unraveling if the Germans broke through there.
The Somme was, at its heart, the byproduct of the Brits making the best they could of a shitty situation. Indecision about what the ultimate goal should be (bite and hold vs. breakthrough) was probably the biggest failure.
For more on that subject you may want to read "The Worst Military Leaders in History" edited by John M. Jennings and Chuck Steele. Was interesting...
Montgomery. Market Garden was a farce from top to bottom, designed to prove to the world that the British Empire was still powerful when in reality it was a hollow shell and the campaign doomed an entire nation.
>the campaign doomed an entire nation.
Wat? It was a minor effort and bodies are cheap. Losing the Empire after two world wars proved empires can be outlasted doomed the nation.
England without an empire is useless and militarily fricked. It's people won't work like Japanese or Germans (German exports and global corporate expansion are epic) so without resource extraction it's fricked. That's why recovery from WWII took well into the 1960s (and was arguably delayed by clinging to bits of empire longer than useful).
>Market Garden
oh yeah, just push through the Huertgen instead, that's a better plan than trying to outflank the Siegfried Line. Idiot.
Montgomery somehow managed to be a twat in person but an able commander. He was a good commander who pulled a fractured British Army together at El Alamein by the strength of his command personality, by picking capable subordinates, and by implementing sound battle plans. At the very least that makes him capable if not outstanding.
Unfortunately, the charisma he displayed as a commander didn't bleed over outside of command, and he was a boor in all other areas. It's really strange.
Modern historians tend to believe he was possibly on the spectrum.
really? for what disorder?
>I'd pick Orde Wingate myself, he definitely had a couple screws loose
Montgomery might be a candidate for superiority complex, but I don't think he was autistic per se. He was needlessly boastful and self-aggrandising, with a very high opinion of himself, which is what pissed off most people around him. The sad thing about that is that if he had just gone about his own way without trying to plump himself up, his achievements would speak for themselves and people would probably have liked him more.
Was he the guy that tried to flirt with women by showing off his toy soldier collection or was that another bong general?
No, he's the one who would lecture women about strategy at parties. While it's a bit pointless to speculate on personal issues without firsthand accounts, Monty being a gay autist just works.
market garden was a failure for two main reasons, neither of which was Montys fault.
the first major frick up was the intelligence failure in not realising that there were 2 fricking panzer divisions almost on top of the drop zone, the failure was understandable as the primary source warning about it was dutch resistance which was known to have been previously infiltrated and of dubious reliability, without those divisions the attack would succeed, with them it was very unlikely, an the attack wouldnt have launched.
the second factor the one that moved the success from doubtful to impossible was the american performance or lack thereof at nijmegan, primary objective is the bridge, no attempt is made on bridge for first 24 hours despite it being held by 2 men and a dog. by the time they do make a attempt its been reinforced and it take the arrival of XXX corps to push through.
Market garden would have worked if thepanzer divisions werent there, and might still have worked if the americans had taken the bridge at nijmegan.
for the rest of his actions during the war he did very well, he might be accused of excessive caution but he was aware of the limited manpower available and had seen the first world war and refused to spend mens lives needlessly
Market Garden was a farce because of Gavin, not Montgomery. The entire fricking Western Front is the textbook example of why Americans are only good as arms suppliers and for providing bodies to hold ground, and are utterly fricking useless at actually taking anything. The Marines are an exception to that.
Although actually it might be more accurate to say that the Americans are more effective in Asia and useless in Europe, while Europeans are useless in Asia and more effective in Europe.
>Americans take their objectives
>British fail
>"IT'S THE AMERICAN'S FAULT!"
The Americans were the only ones who didn't take their objectives, because Gavin sat around all day with his thumb up his ass instead of just walking into Nijmegen because there was nobody fricking there. The British on the other hand held Arnhem for four fricking days waiting for you Black folk to take a bridge defended by a dozen half-starved Krauts, and it ended up taking you five fricking Divisions to do so.
>Verification not required
the americans only took their objective when the british XXX corps showed up and joined the attack on the position, the plan had been for the position to be already taken and XXX corps to pass through and onto arhem
>The entire fricking Western Front is the textbook example of why Americans are only good as arms suppliers and for providing bodies to hold ground, and are utterly fricking useless at actually taking anything. The Marines are an exception to that.
The frick? Who liberated France then?
>Who's the worst?
Putin
>Stillwell Burma/China WW2
>Eisenhower (Operation Keelhaul)
McClellan was a stupidly timid disaster in the field, but also a brilliant midn when it came to organisation, adminsitration and logistics. Not the man you want to lead an army, but absolutely the man you want to build it and keep it functioning in the background.
That alone IMO already disqualifies him from being named among the worst military officers in history.
Why does no one talk about the incompetent Confederate Generals?
Cause there were just as many on the Confederate side as there were the Union
Like the Two Generals who lost West Virginia because they couldn't stop trying to sabotage one another
>Like the Two Generals who lost West Virginia because they couldn't stop trying to sabotage one another
That's the American South in general if they aren't conspiring to frick over America as a whole.
If you want to read up a real shit show, lookup how many battles took place in the South during the American Revolution, not only was it the hornet's nest of loyalists compared to the Northern colonies, but many southerners used the war as an excuse to settle scores against their neighbors so there were more battles where it was colonialists fighting each other than the continentals fighting the British.
The Confederates would have fallen into backstabbing each other if they weren't unified in their goal to maintain the institution of slavery
The Revolution as a whole was a messy civil war that we kind of gloss over because the loyalists were either rehabilitated or fled to Canada and people don't like hearing harsh truths. Case in point, this is one of the most banned books in the country.
The Southern colonies were less interested in revolution, but the Crown did its best to alienate people and ultimately turned the majority of the country against them.
The book was only banned by conservatives in the late 1990s because they were looking for something to fuel their culture wars and they found out it had naughty words in it.
>That's the American South in general if they aren't conspiring to frick over America as a whole ... many southerners used the war as an excuse to settle scores against their neighbors
You sound like you have experience hanging out with rednecks who all get together to grill and then a huge fight breaks out and then the neighbors get involved and they start fighting too and the cops get called. That's basically who these people who comprised the Confederate army were and then their descendants who moved outta the South and got dumped in California joined the Hell's Angels to larp as the "cavalry."
>Montgomery somehow managed to be a twat in person but an able commander.
He was, and he was also under political requirements to achieve gainz in the field while minimizing casualties, since Britain had already borne the brunt of the war and had fewer people, and Churchill wanted Britain to be an equal player in post-war negotiations. So Monty had to navigate that and came across like a twat to the Americans where he'd try to hold his forces back but then make a breakthrough, but he was forced to in the situation.
>supposed to minimize casualties
>biggest operations post El-Alamein are Caen and Market Garden
Monty was a twat to people around him, not just Americans.
There were few if any alternatives to Caen.
Market Garden was logical and cheap. Look at Anzio.
Greater failures have already been mentioned, but in the context of the GWoT I offer a terribly foolhardy British counter-insurgent, Lieutenant General William "Pasha" Hicks. 95% of his ill-conceived command became casualties or defected to the Mahdists, arming 40,000 barely-equipped fanatical jihadis with thousands of contemporary European rifles as well as some mountain guns and machine guns.
Imagine a retired US Army Colonel so incompetent as to accept direct command of the Iraqi Army in 2013, then lead an offensive into the restive Al-Anbar governorate having spent less than two months "training" and integrating with his forces. No reconnaissance or securing proper logistics support, just a blind march for Ramadi that ensured the destruction of his Corps and entire command staff's beheading by ISIS.
Konrad von Hotzendorff was worse than Luigi, Luigi was a moron but his strategy was to bleed out the austrians wich is why he did 14 isonzo battles. He wasn't that moronic.
Pillow was way worse than McClellan
Pic related made Cadorna look smart
>thought machine guns were a meme
>Singlehandedly responsible for nearly a million casualties on his own side
>Go over the top, you pussies
Frick, forgot pic
Publius Quinctilius Varus is up there on the list.
>Literally googled 'worst military commanders in history'
You have to go back tourist
>needing to google Varus
He's not that obscure.
Honestly how did the CSA last as long as it did
My vote as well. He's quite possibly the most womanly man I've ever read about (not counting modern day people anyways). Forrest should have just killed him like he threatened to.
>how
Because everyone was single-mindedly focused on Richmond. Vicksburg + March to the Sea killed the CSA. The capture of Richmond just pushed the carcass into the grave.
Why did this fruitloop get a base named after him?
A lot of bases and what not named after confederates happened because FDR needed Southern votes for the war effort and didn't give a shit about the past.
This dude's got to be in the conversation.
No. It was a miracle he could got the fleet there despite the incompetence of the crew.
This humble tire salesman.
The most amazing thing about the Texan war for independence is that they captured Santa Anna before he could defect.
Frankly I was more considering his abysmal performance in the Mexican-American war, but that was a shitshow all around from Mexico getting baited into a border conflict so America had cause for war (any docs showing the patrols in the disputed territory were there to spark a conflict, cause I wouldn't be surprised?) to Mexico managing to lose California to rebels before US forces could even fricking get there, to all the campaigns being pretty much curbstomps.
It would legitimately have done less damage to Russia if he'd failed to get the fleet there and turned around.
>It would legitimately have done less damage to Russia if he'd failed to get the fleet there and turned around
>He's a a bad admiral because he got the fleet there when he should've fricked up and saved them the loss
Intriguing proposition
>He's a a bad admiral because he got the fleet there when he should've fricked up and saved them the loss
He knew the potatoes he was making vodka with before he got to the distillery, so to speak. Emphasis on potatoes. And vodka.
And he did his best to make the least toxic vodka he could despite the ingredients. He tried to avoid actual contact with the jap fleet and just make for Port Arthur, he tried to avoid the Reinforcements sent by the Tsar knowing they were in even worse shape than his force and would inly slow him down while providing no real value in combat. He even ordered gunnery practice at every chance he got, conditions and ammunition permitting.
Honestly I kinda respect him for his determination to try and make something out of the awful orders he got and refusal to give in to despair through all the misfortune and incompetence he faced. If I were in his position I probably would’ve just shot myself.
>He tried to avoid actual contact with the jap fleet and just make for Port Arthur
Actually Port Arthur was taken before he even made it to the theater cause he dicked around so much. He was sailing for Vladivostok. Straight for Vladivostok through the more dangerous route.
>He even ordered gunnery practice at every chance he got, conditions and ammunition permitting.
That resulted in one of his own ships being struck.
Seriously should have just said frick it and sabotaged the whole endeavor somewhere around Madagascar.
That would be Jan Zizka, never lost battle, even he was blind after injury
Misc Pot
This French moron
Guy of Lusignan (c. 1150 – 18 July 1194)
Lost the True Cross, lost the kingdom of Jerusalem, lost the entire army of the kingdom pretty much.
Baldwin IV dies (that despite his leprosy, blindness, paralysis and the rest was very competent), then Baldwin V dies and sadly Guy becomes king and destroys everything. Lost the Battle of Hattin.
Pope Julius II did nothing wrong
In the ACW on the Yankee side, it has to General John Pope.
Showed up from the west and immediately shit upon his force of easterners.
Proceeded to attack Stonewall Jackson on the old Manassas battlefield, no less.
Focused like a laser on Jackson’s boys at the railroad cut and utterly ignored Longstreet(!) moving up from the south anfpd flanking him.
Got his ass handed to him on a plate, and would have got run back into DC had General Kearney and a vicious thunderstorm not saved the remnant of his army at the Battle of Ox Hill, (site of present day Fair Oaks Mall).
At least Burnside had the excuse of never advancing against an entrenchment, and he had SOME wins on his belt.
Pope was an unmitigated disaster.
I'd say the two Russian tards that made Tannenberg 2: Teutonic boogaloo possible, Rennenkampf & Samsonov, probably make the list.
Extra points for use of unencrypted radio comms & losing an entire goddamn army.
>Rennenkampf & Samsonov
The story of germans knowing that they will never help each other because of them hating each other to the point of fistfights will never stop being funny
>Tannenberg
>Samsonov's Second Army had been almost annihilated: 92,000 captured, 78,000 killed or wounded and only 10,000 (mostly from the retreating flanks) escaping. The Russians had lost 350 big guns. The Germans suffered just 12,000 casualties out of the 150,000 men committed to the battle.
Imagine being so shit you get a 1/6.5 k/d ratio.
Its also amazing the parallels between then and today:
>Getting their men to the front would itself take time because of their relatively sparse and unreliable railway network (for example, 75% of the Russian railways were still single-tracked).[13] Russia intended to have 27 divisions at the front by day 15 of hostilities and 52 by day 23, but it would take 60 days before 90 divisions were in action.
>Communications would be a daunting challenge. The Russian supply of cable was insufficient to run telephone or telegraph connections from the rear; all they had was needed for field communications. Therefore, they relied on mobile wireless stations, which would link Zhilinskiy to his two army commanders and with all corps commanders. The Russians were aware that the Germans had broken their ciphers, but they continued to use them until war broke out. A new code was ready but they were still very short of code books. Zhilinskiy and Rennenkampf each had one; Samsonov did not.[20] According to Prit Buttar, "Consequently, Samsonov concluded that he would have to take the risk of using uncoded radio messages."[21]
Compare that to what happened in modern times, with unencrypted Baofengs, lack of supplies despite being right next to their own borders, etc. Truly time is a flat circle.
>Its also amazing the parallels between then and today
"It has never been like this and now it is exactly the same again."
t: former russian PM
Let’s see also…American Revolution, Bong side has to go to General Burgoyne.
Invades from Canada. Morgan’s riflemen kill all their Indian Allies causing them to run off innawoods, leaving his army blind.
“Sod it! Push on!”
Morgan’s boys are fresh out of Indians to shoot, begin capping his senior officers and NCOs.
“Sod it, push ON!”
Ends up dug in around Saratoga basically helpless and unsupplied with decimated leadership and gets his ass handed to him at Bemis Heights by Benedict Arnold.
“Sod it, we SURRENDER!”
Brings France into the war on the Yankee side.
Can’t lay it all on Burgoyne, though since he was supposed to have help from NYC, but the Bong generals couldn’t or wouldn’t co-ordinate…so they lost America for their Kraut King.
Admirals…Yamamoto and the IJN command.
Executes a stunning sneak attack on Peral Harbor against Sharp and Kimmel.
Doesn’t sick around to chase the carriers that weren’t at Pearl.
Don’t bother to post ansizeable combat force at the western approaches to Panama Canal.
Don’t post sub pickets off of West Coast ports.
Instead attack Kiska and Attu and dick around in Guadalcanal at the ass end of nowhere to prevent communication and supply between thenUSA and the “powerhouses” of New Zealand and Australia…
Never make an effort to seize New Zealand for REASONS.
Instead the Army goes dicking around in fricking Burma.
It’s like Yamamoto thought the war with the USA was won after Pearl Harbor,
Except Yamamoto said the exact opposite. The attack on Pearl would NOT defeat the US. He predicted it would give Japan about six months to run around the Pacific and take land, but then American industry will have caught up and Japan would be on the defensive (and the Americans would not just back down, as some in the IJA insisted.) Yamamoto was right.
>Doesn’t sick around to chase the carriers that weren’t at Pearl.
This is hindsight. Nobody, even the Japanese, saw carriers as the main fighting ship. WWII started that trend, and it's partially because the carriers were left.
If anything was bad about the Pearl Harbor attack was the lack of attacks on cruisers. All the pilots went for the battleships even though they had pilots designated to attack cruisers.
>Don’t bother to post ansizeable combat force at the western approaches to Panama Canal.
>Don’t post sub pickets off of West Coast ports.
I don't think they had the capabilities to pull those off. The Japanese was all about decisive battles anyways.
>This is hindsight. Nobody, even the Japanese, saw carriers as the main fighting ship
I disagree
Carriers were at least as important as battleships
However, nobody had the time to scour the seas for a single fricking carrier
The Japs had invasion fleets to protect and support - that's what nobody remembers
>lack of attacks on cruisers
Cruisers weren't priority
The real mistake at Pearl was the oil farms. At least half of the third strike should have been made, targeting oil farms. Although it wouldn't have dented the US infrastructure that much, it was a bird in the hand, unlike searching for hypothetical carriers which they absolutely zero notion of knowing where they might be.
Modern day:
Colin Powell.
Single-handedly saved the IRG from atomization on the Highway of Death and prevented Stormin’ Norman from chasing them into Iraq to push in what little was left of their shit for them.
This, along with the Joos abandoning the Kurds meant that Sadaam stayed in power, the faithless Euros would buy his fricking oil, and Desert Storm 2 Electric Boogaloo would become necessary.
World would have been a lot different without Sadaam in power through then1990s.
Thanks, homosexual Black person General.
>cheat that lets you rebuild the underway as dorfs appropriating undercity mechanics and wood elf encounter system for when you dig to deep
Damn I wish CA had half the soul of cheater makers
Cont’d with the Mongoloid.
>4. So the only way to "end slavery by engaging in slave trade" would be forced mass release with compensation. An absolute hard end to slavery.<
So many words to knock down the strawman that you spent so much effort trying to get to stand up in the first place,
As though the only way it would t have worked is the way you claim that it wouldn’t have worked, and this then proves….somehow,..that it wouldn’t have worked.
Did you eat paint chips as a little kid?
You should be tested…
>5. The South thinking an absolute hard end to slavery was coming was what they listed for why they were fricking seceding.<
They seceded because they knew there was a hard end coming to Slavery and the devaluation and eventual outlawing of their lawful Private Property via the Free Soil political movement.
There simply wasn’t enough effort put forth to “soften the blow” and work and pay for a different avenue where it wasn’t so drastic an ending.
So you ended up with dead White bodies littering the landscape in the 1860s and Niggeapolis and Nigwaulkee getting burnt to the ground by Black folks in 2020 because Black Lives Matter and George Floyd not being allowed to pass bogus currency.
Yankees really are a phenomenally stupid breed…
>Was it George McClellan?
>besiege Richmond in 1862
>cope with incessant frickery by Lincoln until removed
>brought back because the other fricks are incompetent
>win Antietam
>removed from command again because of Lincoln
>Federals don't get back to Richmond until 1865
How about James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan?
Whose biggest claim to military fame was getting the sweater named after him?
Having a sweater named after you is a pretty rockin' legacy, though.
Wellington won Waterloo, and best he got is a beef pastry monstrosity and a boot. My man James B. got cozy instead.
>Wellington won Waterloo
There you have it, he should have lost spectacularly and now everyone would be rocking wellingtons style
>best he got is a beef pastry monstrosity and a boot
He got two bombers and a colonial capital city as well.
If I can't eat it, drink it or wear it, it don't count.
>a beef pastry monstrosity
It does taste pretty good, though.
No Elphinstone?
What about Pickett? Kek! Why would he just charge the haevily fortified center line like that and lose all his divison? That has to be one of the biggest military blunders ever!
Pickett was ordered to, dipshit
That was Lee's idea, anon. When Longstreet refused to carry out the order, he chose Pickett instead.
And in both their defense, the battle was lost if they did nothing. To have come so far only to get stopped and forced to return home empty-handed, again, would be too much for the CSA.
Nor could they have known that Meade had foreseen the attack.
Whoever the Russian admiral was in charge of the Russian fleet who got dunked on in the Battle of Tsushima. Whoever that guy was, if he somehow survived the revolution, he was probably relegated to playing with rubber duckies on a bathtub after that.
Rozhestvensky was a decent admiral by all accounts, the problem was that he got stuck with the bottom-of-the-barrel of the Russian Navy and had to spend most of his time in command tard-wrangling the fleet, and this was before they even got to the battlefield. Considering the circumstances, he did alright.
Sorry for the pre gunpowder addition, but it should be stated that Paullus & Geminus at Cannae represent the only true time a superior army was annihilated. Started with camping the forces on wrong side of the river and nearly led to downfall of Rome. If Hannibal only learned how to run as siege...what if?
There were no generals in WWI who knew what they were doing, even as the end of the American Civil War at Petersburg was clear indication what warfare had become with published accounts to be studied and yet ignored.
Manuel Silvestro. He was promoted as high as he was mainly because King Alfonso XIII liked him, for no discernable reason, either. He never read most of the reports given to him and instead dismissed the Moors out of hand. He was aware that half the officers in the army could literally not read a map, that half the enlisted men were illiterate and had STDs, and that everyone was shitting in the barracks because the money to do literally anything related to sanitation had been embezzled.
All this culminated in 1921, when he decided to march the army through the Morroccan mountains to reach an objective on the coast, instead of proceeding in favourable terrain, in places where guerillas did not always operate, or in fact in a place where it was possible to get any supply. In the process, it was decided to build a new fort, which was promptly encircled and besieged. Silvestre then responded by sending a battalion to relieve the garrison - which was promptly ambushed and killed. Then, seeing this failure, he then sent a brigade along the same path to try to relieve the garrison again. That brigade was entirely eliminated.
Having failed to relieve the fort, he then commanded the garrison to break out towards his own position. This was not successful, and a total of 2 Spanish troops survived the breakout and retreat. Finally, he ordered his own force, in Annual, to retreat, without actually telling them which direction to go or what to do. Consequently, the remaining force of 5,000 Spaniards was entirely killed, including Silvestre himself.
In the aftermath, the Riffians occupied pretty much the entire Spanish Morocco, and the Spanish government had to beg France for help, seeing as the army had been evaporated by one moron.