Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gert wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
Franco was an amazing figure in a lot of ways. He ousted the communists in Spain when that really should have been impossible. He drove Hitler to fret that he never again wanted to face Franco at the negotiating table again, and he survived the war as an independent power without ever joining the allies.

Formidable, to say the least.

Not sure where the notion that outsitting the communists was a challenge when the governments of Spain had been unstable and unpopular, which is exactly why the Civil War kicked off in the first place. The Nationalist forces were primarily made of up either experienced soldiers or gendarmes while the Republicans largely consisted of volunteer militias. The international support the Nationalists received was far superior, especially from the Italians, and had the benefit of being explicit rather than with the Soviets who attempted to hide much of their involvement in the war.
The Republicans were also far less unified than the Nationalists, as the latter's composite parties all had at least one idea in common, the preservation and continuance of Catholicism in Spain, while the Republicans were made up of parties with often radically different ideologies such as communism and anarchism. This division was furthered by the NKVD who would assassinate those deemed a threat to Stalin's regime in Spain. The acts of the Stalinist Spanish were what soured George Orwell towards communism and Stalin.

Don't forget Franco had Nazi Germany's support in the form of the Condor Legion, and was quite willing to commit atrocities in order to win (Guernica comes to mind). Frankly, the fact that Franco took three years to win the civil war when he had control of the majority of the Spanish military at the onset does not speak kindly to his abilities as a general, and his fascist regime surviving WW2 isn't surprising in the slightest, as he was never involved in the war. The civil war ended months before Germany invaded Poland, and Franco spent the entire time consolidating his hold on Spain and rebuilding everything he'd destroyed in the process of taking over.

He was a piece of gak, not very good at what he did (like most fascists), and the Spanish Space Program is to be commended for ending his regime.

 Gert wrote:

Not sure where the notion that outsitting the communists was a challenge when the governments of Spain had been unstable and unpopular, which is exactly why the Civil War kicked off in the first place. The Nationalist forces were primarily made of up either experienced soldiers or gendarmes while the Republicans largely consisted of volunteer militias. The international support the Nationalists received was far superior, especially from the Italians, and had the benefit of being explicit rather than with the Soviets who attempted to hide much of their involvement in the war.

I'd like to refer you to my book on the topic to address this in full, but a few brief points:

The Republic had a commanding advantage at the start of the war in terms of troops, weapons, money and international recognition and threw it all away. The majority of all arms, Army, Civil Guard, Border Guards, and Assault Police remained loyal, as did almost all of the Air Force and Navy.

If you total up all arms and weapons, the balance was heavily in the Republic's favor. They received more foreign aircraft than the Nationalists (some French, some American, mostly Soviet), and enjoyed a crushing superiority in armor. The Nationalists got useless Italian tankettes and Panzer Is, none of which could do more than scratch the paint on the armor of the Republic's T-26s and BT-5s.

The Republicans were also far less unified than the Nationalists, as the latter's composite parties all had at least one idea in common, the preservation and continuance of Catholicism in Spain, while the Republicans were made up of parties with often radically different ideologies such as communism and anarchism. This division was furthered by the NKVD who would assassinate those deemed a threat to Stalin's regime in Spain. The acts of the Stalinist Spanish were what soured George Orwell towards communism and Stalin.

One of Franco's great political achievements was bringing disparate groups like the Falange and the Requetes into a workable alliance without alienating the middle class.

The Republic was a hot mess, and Franco capitalized on that, as every good commander should do. Unlike the Republic, he could trust his subordinates to do their jobs and didn't have to have the NKVD sending commissars out to shoot people. After the initial frenzy of shooting prisoners for "treason," Franco also realized that treating prisoners well meant that many would switch sides rather than sit in a camp. He understood that both sides used conscription, and conscripts didn't really choose their side. When he conquered northern Spain in 1937, not only did he gain the iron and steel industries, he added 70,000 troops to his ranks.

Another factor in his success was his superior logistics, which allowed sustained offensive operations. The Republic could never manage to do this.

It's really interesting if you dig into it. The side that used the total conformist, cookie-cutter unit organization was the Republic. The Nationalists used a much more flexible organization of mixed battalions. Nationalist divisions were often tailored for special tasks, and were an eclectic mix of conscript regulars, Spanish Foreign Legionnaires, Moroccan regulares and some Falange militia. In fact, piecing together Nationalist unit organization was a really hard tasks since so few historians actually bothered to look into it.

Two other points about Franco. The guy understood the importance of leadership, and created accelerated training programs for officer candidates as well as NCOs, giving his forces a qualitative edge down to the company level.

The other was that he never took a step back. (Okay Belchite, but it was a tiny loss.) The unyielding, inexorable Nationalist advance is one reason why people assume the war was a foregone conclusion. It wasn't, but Franco was able to make it look like it was.

That's pretty impressive.

Martel is definitely underrated now. I mean ask the average person on the street who he was.

 Gert wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
Franco was an amazing figure in a lot of ways. He ousted the communists in Spain when that really should have been impossible. He drove Hitler to fret that he never again wanted to face Franco at the negotiating table again, and he survived the war as an independent power without ever joining the allies.

Formidable, to say the least.

Not sure where the notion that outsitting the communists was a challenge when the governments of Spain had been unstable and unpopular, which is exactly why the Civil War kicked off in the first place. The Nationalist forces were primarily made of up either experienced soldiers or gendarmes while the Republicans largely consisted of volunteer militias. The international support the Nationalists received was far superior, especially from the Italians, and had the benefit of being explicit rather than with the Soviets who attempted to hide much of their involvement in the war.
The Republicans were also far less unified than the Nationalists, as the latter's composite parties all had at least one idea in common, the preservation and continuance of Catholicism in Spain, while the Republicans were made up of parties with often radically different ideologies such as communism and anarchism. This division was furthered by the NKVD who would assassinate those deemed a threat to Stalin's regime in Spain. The acts of the Stalinist Spanish were what soured George Orwell towards communism and Stalin.

With all due respect, I think that shows a woeful misunderstanding of how the Communists actually work. Who did the Bolsheviks in Russia have to turn to except each other? All the same problems existed for them there, The Orthodox church was a power far more deeply entrenched than Catholicism even in Spain. Other nations couldn't effectively invade Russia. The borders were much farther away from the action. The Russo-Japanese War was a problem, but Moscow was in no danger of being overrun by Tokyo.

The Reds did what they have always done, and continue to do: Work on the minds of the youth, and Spain of that era was no picnic for the Spanish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Laughing Man wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
Franco was an amazing figure in a lot of ways. He ousted the communists in Spain when that really should have been impossible. He drove Hitler to fret that he never again wanted to face Franco at the negotiating table again, and he survived the war as an independent power without ever joining the allies.

Formidable, to say the least.

Not sure where the notion that outsitting the communists was a challenge when the governments of Spain had been unstable and unpopular, which is exactly why the Civil War kicked off in the first place. The Nationalist forces were primarily made of up either experienced soldiers or gendarmes while the Republicans largely consisted of volunteer militias. The international support the Nationalists received was far superior, especially from the Italians, and had the benefit of being explicit rather than with the Soviets who attempted to hide much of their involvement in the war.
The Republicans were also far less unified than the Nationalists, as the latter's composite parties all had at least one idea in common, the preservation and continuance of Catholicism in Spain, while the Republicans were made up of parties with often radically different ideologies such as communism and anarchism. This division was furthered by the NKVD who would assassinate those deemed a threat to Stalin's regime in Spain. The acts of the Stalinist Spanish were what soured George Orwell towards communism and Stalin.

Don't forget Franco had Nazi Germany's support in the form of the Condor Legion, and was quite willing to commit atrocities in order to win (Guernica comes to mind). Frankly, the fact that Franco took three years to win the civil war when he had control of the majority of the Spanish military at the onset does not speak kindly to his abilities as a general, and his fascist regime surviving WW2 isn't surprising in the slightest, as he was never involved in the war. The civil war ended months before Germany invaded Poland, and Franco spent the entire time consolidating his hold on Spain and rebuilding everything he'd destroyed in the process of taking over.

He was a piece of gak, not very good at what he did (like most fascists), and the Spanish Space Program is to be commended for ending his regime.

A civil war like the Spanish one is all about hearts and minds, my friend. I suggest you read my post just above this one. I imagine we'll just have to agree to disagree, but in the end, Franco was the boss, and nobody ever threw him out. The winner is the winner.

Its lot like the people who call George Washington a joke of a general. Who ended up with the capital of the US named after him? Not Burgoyne or Cornwallis, if memory serves ;-)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptekon wrote:
Martel is definitely underrated now. I mean ask the average person on the street who he was.

In fairness, how many of them know who Publius Cornelius Scipio was?

It might depend a bit on what name you use.

Charles the Hammer and Scipio Africanus are probably (this is me guessing) more commonly known names among English speakers.

Hannibal is definitely more famous than Scipio, though and the general understanding of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages among Americans is pretty shoddy. We don't really teach either in K-12 education so any knowledge of those names comes about by the nebulous flow of cultural osmosis.

 LordofHats wrote:
It might depend a bit on what name you use.

Charles the Hammer and Scipio Africanus are probably (this is me guessing) more commonly known names among English speakers.

Hannibal is definitely more famous than Scipio, though and the general understanding of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages among Americans is pretty shoddy. We don't really teach either in K-12 education so any knowledge of those names comes about by the nebulous flow of cultural osmosis.

I learned both in the library of Burbank Elementary School, but I get what you mean.

I first learnt about Charles Martel in AoE2 (Conqueror's Expansion).

I doubt many people on the street could name many successful early medieval leaders though. In the UK, you would probably struggle to get more than Alfred the Great and maybe Charlemagne or Cnut. The whole era is underrated and still commonly referred to as the Dark Ages.

Laughing Man wrote:

Don't forget Franco had Nazi Germany's support in the form of the Condor Legion, and was quite willing to commit atrocities in order to win (Guernica comes to mind). Frankly, the fact that Franco took three years to win the civil war when he had control of the majority of the Spanish military at the onset does not speak kindly to his abilities as a general, and his fascist regime surviving WW2 isn't surprising in the slightest, as he was never involved in the war. The civil war ended months before Germany invaded Poland, and Franco spent the entire time consolidating his hold on Spain and rebuilding everything he'd destroyed in the process of taking over.

He was a piece of gak, not very good at what he did (like most fascists), and the Spanish Space Program is to be commended for ending his regime.

he wasn't initially the one to lead the effort.
Spain is Pain to fight a war in. Always was and has been, topographically.
The numbers in the initial coup were actually spread fairly evenly in regards to the army. Neither the Navy nor mainland spain though were in the nationalists favour.
It's only in 38 when the numbers are deciscivly in the nationalist camp.


Just because you don't like the man or the ideology, which is perfectly justifyable, doesn't mean that he didn't do something impressive which far greater men with far better armies for their time failed massivly at.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Just because you don't like the man or the ideology, which is perfectly justifyable, doesn't mean that he didn't do something impressive which far greater men with far better armies for their time failed massivly at.

Yep. The correlation of forces didn't swing to the Nationalist side until after the conquest of northern Spain - a disaster for the Republic in terms of arms, supplies and men which swelled the Nationalist ranks.

People forget things like the French border being opened in the spring of 1938, allowing the Republic to build entirely new army to launch the Ebro campaign. A lesser commander might have provoked France into outright intervention (which the Republic desperately wanted).

Oh, and I forgot Guernica. It wasn't a terror bombing. The story about Guernica being an atrocity is propaganda well past its expiration date. Guernica was a legitimate target with a garrison, lay in the route of the Nationalist advance, was home to significant arms plants and commanded a key river crossing. Even the painting is a bit of a lie - Picasso started it before the town was bombed and renamed it to capitalize on the publicity.

All this has been out there for a while, btw.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Just because you don't like the man or the ideology, which is perfectly justifyable, doesn't mean that he didn't do something impressive which far greater men with far better armies for their time failed massivly at.

Yep. The correlation of forces didn't swing to the Nationalist side until after the conquest of northern Spain - a disaster for the Republic in terms of arms, supplies and men which swelled the Nationalist ranks.

People forget things like the French border being opened in the spring of 1938, allowing the Republic to build entirely new army to launch the Ebro campaign. A lesser commander might have provoked France into outright intervention (which the Republic desperately wanted).

Oh, and I forgot Guernica. It wasn't a terror bombing. The story about Guernica being an atrocity is propaganda well past its expiration date. Guernica was a legitimate target with a garrison, lay in the route of the Nationalist advance, was home to significant arms plants and commanded a key river crossing. Even the painting is a bit of a lie - Picasso started it before the town was bombed and renamed it to capitalize on the publicity.

All this has been out there for a while, btw.

Agreed completely. Whatever anyone thinks of the communists, they are masters of propaganda, and always have been.

I like Alfred the Great.

 Adeptekon wrote:
I like Alfred the Great.

I prefer uhtred of bebbanburg. :p

My other personal favorite is Heraclius who may not be the greatest, but definitely deserves some credit.

 Adeptekon wrote:
My other personal favorite is Heraclius who may not be the greatest, but definitely deserves some credit.

For ending the antiquity and facilitating the Caliphate? That heraclius?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
My other personal favorite is Heraclius who may not be the greatest, but definitely deserves some credit.

For ending the antiquity and facilitating the Caliphate? That heraclius?

Anquity was was over, this was late antiquity. For saving the Empire or what was left of it. And facilitation is a matter of perspective, ultimately the ERE was a buffer for the West and a preserver of it's heritage, despite what Edward Gibbon might have to say about it.

 Adeptekon wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
My other personal favorite is Heraclius who may not be the greatest, but definitely deserves some credit.

For ending the antiquity and facilitating the Caliphate? That heraclius?

Anquity was was over, this was late antiquity. For saving the Empire or what was left of it. And facilitation is a matter of perspective, ultimately the ERE was a buffer for the West and a preserver of it's heritage, despite what Edward Gibbon might have to say about it.

What about basil ii (the great, the 'Bulgar-slayer)

Not Online!!! wrote:
he wasn't initially the one to lead the effort.
Spain is Pain to fight a war in. Always was and has been, topographically.
The numbers in the initial coup were actually spread fairly evenly in regards to the army. Neither the Navy nor mainland spain though were in the nationalists favour.
It's only in 38 when the numbers are deciscivly in the nationalist camp.

Franco was the leader of the Nationalists from October 1936, only four months after the war began, and was a core member of the uprising planned by the Nationalists from the very beginning. Any idea that he wasn't an important figurehead for the Nationalists is utter bunk. Even with the Nationalist movement being made up of monarchist restorationists, fascists, and right-wing parties, they were far more unified in their goals of restoring Catholicism in Spain and removing the communists from power. The Republicans were made up of hardcore Stalinists, more moderate socialists, communists, and anarchists with their only uniting goal being the prevention of a Nationalist victory. When the Soviets started sending aid (which ended almost a year into the conflict unlike with the Nationalists supporters) they also sent political agents and the NKVD to suppress or destroy the enemies of Stalin, who were supposed to be allies in the Republican cause.

The army was also heavily on the side of the Nationalists as with most nations, that was where the most conservative and traditionalist members of Spanish society ended up. They also had huge support from the police who were not soldiers but still had discipline and weapons compared to the largely volunteer militias of the Republicans that were only armed after the Nationalists launched their coup. The Navy largely supported the Republican cause but lost its two most modern ships to the Nationalists. The Republicans also held onto all of Spain's airforce, however, it was very outdated and no match for the aircraft supplied by Germany and Italy.

Yes, the Republicans held onto all the major cities of Spain but as I said before the Nationalists received far superior aid from foreign powers with Italy providing the most troops, supplies, and equipment while Germany supplied a smaller but more advanced group, while Portugal supported the Nationalists by allowing the continued flow of arms and supplies from the other fascist powers to the Nationalists.

The opening stages of the conflict were extremely precarious and had the Nationalists organised their coup better or the Republicans armed the citizens as requested then the whole thing might have been over in under a year. But that didn't happen and focussing only on the opening stages of the war is a poor attempt to support the idea that Franco was some kind of underrated general. A united front, superior foreign aid, and a strong core of military or disciplined troops meant the Nationalists had a strong hand during the course of the Spanish Civil War.

 Gert wrote:
The army was also heavily on the side of the Nationalists as with most nations, that was where the most conservative and traditionalist members of Spanish society ended up. They also had huge support from the police who were not soldiers but still had discipline and weapons compared to the largely volunteer militias of the Republicans that were only armed after the Nationalists launched their coup.

A slim majority of the Army remained loyal, as did two-thirds of the Assault Guards. The Border Police and Civil Guard were evenly split.

The Navy largely supported the Republican cause but lost its two most modern ships to the Nationalists. The Republicans also held onto all of Spain's airforce, however, it was very outdated and no match for the aircraft supplied by Germany and Italy.

The Soviets provided aircraft in approximately equal numbers to those of Italy and Germany combined. The I-15 and I-16 were equal to or superior to anything in the Nationalist air force other than the BF 109 and the dozen or so HE-112s. The BF-109 deployment was capped at three squadrons, so hardly enough to swing an air campaign involving more than 700 aircraft on each side.

Yes, the Republicans held onto all the major cities of Spain but as I said before the Nationalists received far superior aid from foreign powers with Italy providing the most troops, supplies, and equipment while Germany supplied a smaller but more advanced group, while Portugal supported the Nationalists by allowing the continued flow of arms and supplies from the other fascist powers to the Nationalists.

Again, superior in what sense? Russia's 240 tanks surpassed anything the Nationalists could field. Franco adapted to this with close integration of artillery fires, anti-tank guns and airstrikes - as a good general would do.

The opening stages of the conflict were extremely precarious and had the Nationalists organised their coup better or the Republicans armed the citizens as requested then the whole thing might have been over in under a year. But that didn't happen and focussing only on the opening stages of the war is a poor attempt to support the idea that Franco was some kind of underrated general. A united front, superior foreign aid, and a strong core of military or disciplined troops meant the Nationalists had a strong hand during the course of the Spanish Civil War.

The united Nationalist front didn't happen by itself. It did not spontaneously materialize. Franco was instrumental in convincing his fellow generals to name him surpreme leader. He then balanced their contending egos to ensure unity of command.

There is also no readily apparent reason for Carlist loyalists to want to restore an Alphonsist to the throne (the factions had fought a series of civil wars, in fact). It took skill to pull the various disparate elements on the Nationalist side together.

Skill that the Popular Front simply lacked.

More importantly, each side raised 500,000 troops during the course of the war, which was fundamentally transformed from a botched coup and terror raids to conventional warfare on a massive scale. As I wrote above, Franco knew that that the 30,000 Legionnaires were insignificant to win the war (especially after heavy losses on the road to Madrid). He therefore planned for the long haul, creating schools for officers and NCOs, to obtain a tactical edge.

He also created a very effective repair/rework system, so that captured rifles could be refurbished and put into service. He eventually built a functional tank force out off of captured Soviet vehicles.

Put simply, Franco did everything right while the Republic made many mistakes. Part of being a good commander is the ability to capitalize enemy on mistakes, and this he did again and again.

And yes, that made it look like his victory was a foregone conclusion. It absolutely was not.

Deadnight wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
My other personal favorite is Heraclius who may not be the greatest, but definitely deserves some credit.

For ending the antiquity and facilitating the Caliphate? That heraclius?

Anquity was was over, this was late antiquity. For saving the Empire or what was left of it. And facilitation is a matter of perspective, ultimately the ERE was a buffer for the West and a preserver of it's heritage, despite what Edward Gibbon might have to say about it.

What about basil ii (the great, the 'Bulgar-slayer)

What about The Great Domestic?

 Gert wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
he wasn't initially the one to lead the effort.
Spain is Pain to fight a war in. Always was and has been, topographically.
The numbers in the initial coup were actually spread fairly evenly in regards to the army. Neither the Navy nor mainland spain though were in the nationalists favour.
It's only in 38 when the numbers are deciscivly in the nationalist camp.

Franco was the leader of the Nationalists from October 1936, only four months after the war began, and was a core member of the uprising planned by the Nationalists from the very beginning. Any idea that he wasn't an important figurehead for the Nationalists is utter bunk. Even with the Nationalist movement being made up of monarchist restorationists, fascists, and right-wing parties, they were far more unified in their goals of restoring Catholicism in Spain and removing the communists from power. The Republicans were made up of hardcore Stalinists, more moderate socialists, communists, and anarchists with their only uniting goal being the prevention of a Nationalist victory. When the Soviets started sending aid (which ended almost a year into the conflict unlike with the Nationalists supporters) they also sent political agents and the NKVD to suppress or destroy the enemies of Stalin, who were supposed to be allies in the Republican cause.

The army was also heavily on the side of the Nationalists as with most nations, that was where the most conservative and traditionalist members of Spanish society ended up. They also had huge support from the police who were not soldiers but still had discipline and weapons compared to the largely volunteer militias of the Republicans that were only armed after the Nationalists launched their coup. The Navy largely supported the Republican cause but lost its two most modern ships to the Nationalists. The Republicans also held onto all of Spain's airforce, however, it was very outdated and no match for the aircraft supplied by Germany and Italy.

Yes, the Republicans held onto all the major cities of Spain but as I said before the Nationalists received far superior aid from foreign powers with Italy providing the most troops, supplies, and equipment while Germany supplied a smaller but more advanced group, while Portugal supported the Nationalists by allowing the continued flow of arms and supplies from the other fascist powers to the Nationalists.

The opening stages of the conflict were extremely precarious and had the Nationalists organised their coup better or the Republicans armed the citizens as requested then the whole thing might have been over in under a year. But that didn't happen and focussing only on the opening stages of the war is a poor attempt to support the idea that Franco was some kind of underrated general. A united front, superior foreign aid, and a strong core of military or disciplined troops meant the Nationalists had a strong hand during the course of the Spanish Civil War.

I once again refer to toussaint which has written a book according to himself. And especially the foreign aid bit is laughable considering the soviet aid.

Not Online!!! wrote:

I once again refer to toussaint which has written a book according to himself. And especially the foreign aid bit is laughable considering the soviet aid.

The book is Long Live Death: The Keys to Victory in the Spanish Civil War.

Here's the link for those interested:

https://www.amazon.com/Long-Live-Death-Victory-Spanish-ebook/dp/B08DCHBG45?ref_=ast_author_dp

I'm just going to have to disagree with you then. I've read sources that differ from your book and you're obviously going to take that over anything I say.

Belisarius (500 - 565)

 Gert wrote:
I'm just going to have to disagree with you then. I've read sources that differ from your book and you're obviously going to take that over anything I say.

In fairness, Gert, when the assertion seems to center around "Franco was a piece of ..." it seems that the argument is emotionally centered, and it colors everything stated further.

I simply am going to stick with Don Juan of Austria as my favorite Spaniard in this thread. You have a great day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptekon wrote:
Belisarius (500 - 565)

Truly an amazing commander, and always loyal to the ungrateful emperor that he served so magnificently. I wonder what would have happened if General Plague hadn't beaten the Byzantines. A restored Roman Empire? Not impossible.

 Gert wrote:
I'm just going to have to disagree with you then. I've read sources that differ from your book and you're obviously going to take that over anything I say.

Well, yes. I've sifted the sources and used the numbers I find reliable. Like most people, I assumed Franco was dragged across the finish line by the Italians and Germans. However, that was not the case. The facts simply don't back it up, and to make that narrative stick, people have to hand-wave a lot of things out of the way. Regrettably, contemporary historians are still pushing these tired tropes, which have long since been debunked.

But let's set that aside, and move onto my second, totally non-controversial choice: Chiang Kai-shek.

Xanthippus..... that Spartan mercenary in Carthage at the right time during the 1st Punic War.

I don't know, i liked this thread better when it was about generals that were relatively unknown and nobody tried to play 'spot the fascist'.

Laughing Man wrote:
You'll understand if I'm skeptical of the supposed expert who's doing his damnedest to deny literal Nazi warcrimes.

First time dealing with mil-hist authors, i guess Sadly, it's very much par of the course still (for many) to do 'fair evaluations, purely from a military angle, in the interest of open discussion'.

Tsagualsa wrote:
I don't know, i liked this thread better when it was about generals that were relatively unknown and nobody tried to play 'spot the fascist'.

Indeed. Lets stick to the topic of most underrated military commanders.

Maurice (539 - 602)