Originally posted by Quark_666
Without good foreign relations law and order cannot survive.Ask Hitler. He lost because of his foreign relations. So did France, Spain, Rome...
Hitler didnt lose beacuse of foreign relations.hitler lost because he got carryed away with is power.the reason why hitler lost the war in europe was because of is tactics.
Originally posted by High Priest
Hitler didnt lose beacuse of foreign relations.hitler lost because he got carryed away with is power.the reason why hitler lost the war in europe was because of is tactics.
Yes, he got carried away with his power. Which IS the entire idea behind "conquer". It's pretty much the definition.
And better tactics wouldn't have saved Hitler. Maybe better strategy...MAYBE, but his tactics were as good as they came.
Originally posted by Quark_666
Yes, he got carried away with his power. Which IS the entire idea behind "conquer". It's pretty much the definition.And better tactics wouldn't have saved Hitler. Maybe better strategy...MAYBE, but his tactics were as good as they came.
Why better strategy. Hitler lost because of is tactics with britain and russia .A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning". Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed. Strategies are used to make the problem or problems easier to understand and solve.
Originally posted by High Priest
Hitler didnt lose beacuse of foreign relations.hitler lost because he got carryed away with is power.the reason why hitler lost the war in europe was because of is tactics.
Hitler wasn't a tactician. He was (poor) strategist. And if anything he lost cause of poor strategy. (and overconfidence, partly).
Originally posted by inimalist
ummmHitler was both a phenomenal tactician and strategist
He wasn't a general. But outside of military decisions, he was a master planner and operator.
I agree he was a master planner and operator.But the reason why hitler failed was down to tactics.Military tactics the art of organizing an army are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. Changes in philosophy and technology over time have been reflected in changes to military tactics.
Up until the nineteenth century, many military tactics were confined to battlefield concerns, such as how to best maneuver units during combat in open terrain. In current military thought, tactics are the lowest level of planning, involving small units ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred men.Wich is why hitler failed he sent is men to britain and the rest to russia that was hitler tactial mistake.
Originally posted by High Priest
I agree he was a master planner and operator.But the reason why hitler failed was down to tactics.Military tactics the art of organizing an army are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. Changes in philosophy and technology over time have been reflected in changes to military tactics.Up until the nineteenth century, many military tactics were confined to battlefield concerns, such as how to best maneuver units during combat in open terrain. In current military thought, tactics are the lowest level of planning, involving small units ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred men.Wich is why hitler failed he sent is men to britain and the rest to russia that was hitler tactial mistake.
That sounds like a strategic mistake. Tactics are limited to the battlefield. What makes you think that the ruler of a nation can make the slightest difference in tactics? But Hitler had excellent officers who utilized efficient tactics, so his loss had nothing to do with tactics.
Anyway, my original argument was on topic. It was a mistake for Hitler to bite off more than he could chew.
I tend to agree more with Quark about tactics v. strategy, even though it seems to be more of an issue of definition.
There is even an argument for Hitler attacking Russia. Had the slash and burn strategy not been so effective, and had Hitler focused on taking Moscow as opposed to the many smaller cities along the way, he could have very easily taken the capital before the winter gave the Russians a tactical advantage.
Originally posted by Quark_666
That sounds like a strategic mistake. Tactics are limited to the battlefield. What makes you think that the ruler of a nation can make the slightest difference in tactics? But Hitler had excellent officers who utilized efficient tactics, so his loss had nothing to do with tactics.Anyway, my original argument was on topic. It was a mistake for Hitler to bite off more than he could chew.
Hitler was the supreme commander of Germany throughout the war so it seems inevitable that his decisions must be responsible for Germany losing the Second World War. He refused to listen to anyone else’s advice, not even his own officers’. He thought that he knew best in every situation when, of course, he did not. He over-stretched both himself and his armies. An examination of his decisions should therefore reveal why Germany lost.Good strategy and proper planning determined the winners of World War 2. Tactics essentially short term strategy were also an important factor in individual battles but the country that often used the better battle tactics - Germany - was ultimately the loser of World War 2 even though they won many important battles with their superior battle tactics. Germany lost World War 2 because of strategic planning errors and the fact that the allies came up with a grand strategy - "Germany first" & "unconditional surrender" - which focused their armed forces minds on the desired goals of the war. 😱
Originally posted by High Priest
Hitler was the supreme commander of Germany throughout the war so it seems inevitable that his decisions must be responsible for Germany losing the Second World War. He refused to listen to anyone else’s advice, not even his own officers’. He thought that he knew best in every situation when, of course, he did not. He over-stretched both himself and his armies. An examination of his decisions should therefore reveal why Germany lost.Good strategy and proper planning determined the winners of World War 2. Tactics essentially short term strategy were also an important factor in individual battles but the country that often used the better battle tactics - Germany - was ultimately the loser of World War 2 even though they won many important battles with their superior battle tactics. Germany lost World War 2 because of strategic planning errors and the fact that the allies came up with a grand strategy - "Germany first" & "unconditional surrender" - which focused their armed forces minds on the desired goals of the war. 😱
Yes, he was overconfident. You've proved that quite well. Does it somehow support your belief that he would have won if his tactics were better? Remember, we're talking about whether conquest or colonization is more effective. This whole thing about hitler seems to support colonization...you yourself illustrated how unforgiving it is to make a few mistakes in a war.
Originally posted by Quark_666
Yes, he was overconfident. You've proved that quite well. Does it somehow support your belief that he would have won if his tactics were better? Remember, we're talking about whether conquest or colonization is more effective. This whole thing about hitler seems to support colonization...you yourself illustrated how unforgiving it is to make a few mistakes in a war.
Colonization rules thats the answer. 😖mart:
Originally posted by inimalist
Has American economic colonization done more to spread the American culture or has American military imperialism?
I say that American militarism has been the greater contributor to the spread of American culture, as unlikely as it seems.
There're a few reasons, one reason, is that conquest of the Americas and what is now the U.S., made way for colonization, which then gradually thrived, along with all its other aspects, like culture, with time and momentum influencing its growth.
And as an aside, the American soldier in my top five slot of symbols representing the U.S. The American soldier is a culture icon in and of itself.
To get back, in other words, if it weren't for conquest, there'd be no colonization. And without at least an organized colony, a culture fabric wouldn't even exist for it to be significantly spread out in the first place.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Conquest does it more effectively, though. And more efficiently, as well.
More efficient and effective? Where a country takes money and soldiers away from its people to deplete the resources of another country so it can finally take the depleted spoils?
I don't see why.
Originally posted by High Priest
I agree he was a master planner and operator.But the reason why hitler failed was down to tactics.Military tactics the art of organizing an army are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. Changes in philosophy and technology over time have been reflected in changes to military tactics.Up until the nineteenth century, many military tactics were confined to battlefield concerns, such as how to best maneuver units during combat in open terrain. In current military thought, tactics are the lowest level of planning, involving small units ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred men.Wich is why hitler failed he sent is men to britain and the rest to russia that was hitler tactial mistake.
I agree but I don't. By this time in history, wars are won strictly on arms. Strategy and tactics don't mean shit to tanks or machine guns.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I say that American militarism has been the greater contributor to the spread of American culture, as unlikely as it seems.There're a few reasons, one reason, is that conquest of the Americas and what is now the U.S., made way for colonization, which then gradually thrived, along with all its other aspects, like culture, with time and momentum influencing its growth.
And as an aside, the American soldier in my top five slot of symbols representing the U.S. The American soldier is a culture icon in and of itself.
To get back, in other words, if it weren't for conquest, there'd be no colonization. And without at least an organized colony, a culture fabric wouldn't even exist for it to be significantly spread out in the first place.
And you are putting America as the best example why? Just cause we've been a notable world power for a century? Every nation has had their moment of glory in the past.