Jump to content

PSA-- don't tell people you want to dine with Hitler

Beau Vine

By Beau Vine
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

'stache

'stache 22164

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SwanderedTalent said:

this thread reminds me that there are posters here who said they'd be willing to have a beer with Barry Switzer

they should all lose their jobs, too

I have literally had a beer with Barry Switzer. It was part of the job, so I was not fired. But I have to look at myself in the mirror every morning knowing that shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17446

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Sgt Hulk said:

You missed the point he literally brainwashed and convinced an entire population of humanity to believe the shit he was spewing. That takes skills to do that to a literally entire country.  That’s what the coach was alluding too.  But yeah maybe don’t pick a man that wanted to eradicate human beings.  He could have picked Bruno Mars. That dude has convinced tons of people he’s a good singer 

Threaten to humiliate/harm people and they will gladly join you in picking on someone else.   Give them an excuse to do horrible things and plausible deniability for those who witness it.

He was a shit leader.  He lead them off one cliff to another and a lot of people died for it, and his economic strategy was rooted in theft.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TreatyOak

TreatyOak 17456

Posted
Posted (edited)

Rommel is a little like Shaka. Great when he went against pre-season, little schools but when faced against equally talented teams, he routinely got out coached and lost.

Hitler was also adept at tolerating incredibly disorganized government, industry and a military machine where command and hierarchy was hopelessly muddled. Amazing fact: There were 17 groups working independently on atomic weapons, including, (are you ready for this one,) the post office!

Edited by TreatyOak
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8350

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Yeah, one that doesn’t let the U.K. come back and get a tie at Dunkirk. If they route there and then full on invade Britain, they can then only deal with the Russians. 

I still say it was his overreliance on the blitz. If there was ever a third and Orlando, it was trying to get all the way to Moscow, especially on a snowy field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53631

Posted
Posted
Just now, MaybeACoordinator said:

I still say it was his overreliance on the blitz. If there was ever a third and Orlando, it was trying to get all the way to Moscow, especially on a snowy field. 

He also had a tendency to overvalue size.  Poured so many resources into bigger guns, ships, and tanks. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I still say it was his overreliance on the blitz. If there was ever a third and Orlando, it was trying to get all the way to Moscow, especially on a snowy field. 

No shit. And trying to come all the way around by Stalingrad instead of the shorter route up the Kiev Gap was just mystifying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Helobious

Helobious 9841

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Arguably three of the best battle commanders in history were on the side of evil.  

Lee, Rommel and that guy from Mongolian Grill.

Alexander is well... Different.

And no I don't want to argue it.

This thread has not delivered like the juggs thread and I'm sorry for my part in it.

Lol. Lee was overrated as fuck. Chose traditional over guerrilla warfare against a superior opponent, invaded the north out of stupidity, and sent 1500+ of his men to their deaths when he ordered a charge across an open field (with a fence in the middle) into the teeth of the Union defenses. Not to mention he had the easier path to victory the whole time. The union needed to invade and occupy the south to win. The confederacy just had to keep the union out to win. Lee still couldn’t accomplish that. He’s worshipped as a hero because he fought to preserve slavery, but he choked when the steaks were the highest. If he had won he could’ve had all the statues and schools named after him that he wanted. But he lost so take the L and get over it. /rant

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53631

Posted
Posted (edited)

My understanding is that Lee was against slavery but chose to fight with/for his state out of loyalty. While the secession was certainly slavery driven, the union’s answer was not, until enthusiasm in the north waned as the war dragged on and Lincoln issued the proclamation so that the north wasn’t just fighting for the preservation of the union but the freedom of slaves. 

he also performed well during the mexican- American war. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8350

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yes, Gettysburg was an ill-advised campaign and Pickett's Charge was idiotic, but the whole "Lee was a garbage general" trope seems to come from people who let their hatred for slavery blind them to every single quality of every single Confederate. You can acknowledge that he was not a terrible general while also acknowledging that he fought to preserve slavery.

If he was so inept, why did it take the Federals so long to win? 

And I doubt very much that the Confederacy could have prevailed had they just stayed home waging guerrilla warfare. Shelby Foote wrote that the North won with one hand tied behind it's back -- they never mobilized to the extent that the Confederacy did, or the US did in later wars. And no matter what Lee did in Pennsylvania, Vicksburg was gonna fall and the Federals were going to have most of the South either surrounded or split in two, not to mention control over all ports and borders save for faraway Mexico, at a great remove from the surrounded main body of the CSA army. 

Rebel guerrilla strikes would have brought on a long succession of Marches to the Sea. Sherman would have taken Georgia while other generals would have won their places in the history books laying waste to Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, etc. 

Aside from General Patrick Cleburne's plan -- to arm the slaves and give them freedom in return for their service to the Confederacy -- there was no path for the South to possibly win.

And Cleburne's plan was roundly denounced by most, but not all, of the top brass of the Confederacy. Jeff Davis ordered that it never be mentioned again, and that those who knew about it were not to tell anyone else, and word that Cleburne had ever even made that suggestion was suppressed for decades after the war.

That's my favorite argument to employ against people who try to downplay the central role of slavery in the war. Cleburne took up the Confederacy's bullshit position -- this is a war against tyranny, not a war to preserve slavery -- and challenged them to prove it. They  most cetrainly did not, and Cleburne found himself getting passed over for promotions time and time again before he was killed at the head of his men at Franklin. 

In fact,  some of them said that they would prefer for the South to be utterly destroyed before they had to share it with free blacks, even if those free blacks had fought alongside them against the North.

 

 

 

Edited by MaybeACoordinator
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17446

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I still say it was his overreliance on the blitz. If there was ever a third and Orlando, it was trying to get all the way to Moscow, especially on a snowy field. 

Actually it was the German's reliance on horses that doomed them.  Slow moving supply lines.   By the middle of the war,  only 1/6 of their divisions used mechanized transport.  idiots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Laga4

Laga4 1270

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Yeah, one that doesn’t let the U.K. come back and get a tie at Dunkirk. If they route there and then full on invade Britain, they can then only deal with the Russians. 

U.K. had a better bag man.  They recruited much better.

The U.S.A. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...