The result is a system for ranking every prominent commander in military history. It calculates the total wins added or subtracted by the player compared to a replacement-level player. For example, a baseball player with 5 WAR contributed 5 additional wins to his team, compared to the average contributions of a high-level minor league player. WAR is far from perfect, but provides a way to compare players based on one statistic. My model, which I explain below, provides an estimate for the performance of an average general in any given circumstances.
My first challenge was constructing a reliable dataset. Since I was unable to find a comprehensive dataset of historical battles, I decided to build my own.
I then developed a function that could scrape key information for each battle, including all of the commanders involved in the battle, the total forces available to those commanders, and the outcome of the battle. The resulting dataset provided a large sample of battles to create a baseline replacement-level performance, against which I would compare the performance of individual generals. Sample of battle data on Wikipedia , before scraping.
Sample of battle data scraped and processed into dataframe. I then constructed a linear model from that sample of battles. The resulting model was surprisingly conservative in its weights, suggesting that raw soldier quantities have a relatively small effect compared to other factors such as terrain or technology, which further research could investigate in more detail.
I was ready to rank each general and delve into the results.
For instance, French Emperor Napoleon gained. The WAR system assigns Napoleon 1 win for his victory, but subtracts the chance a replacement general would have won anyway. Thus, Napoleon gains. The system uses a similar methodology to handle defeats.
Among all generals, Napoleon had the highest WAR In fact, the next highest performer, Julius Caesar 7. Napoleon benefited from the large number of battles in which he led forces. Among his 43 listed battles, he won 38 and lost only 5.
World Socialist Web Site
That would have cut the supply of Iron ore from Sweden and given the allies lots of options about what to do next. But at that time I was an anti communist so I was not troubled by this.
- Accessibility links.
- Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2013.
- The Old First Massachusetts Coast Artillery in War and Peace.
- Analyse und Interpretation von Vergil, Aeneis 9,296-350 (German Edition).
It seemed in fact a forward thinking strategy. That is probably an outlook that millions of Americans would still have if they ever reached this stage of understanding. Then came Sept. I did not see this as an attack against the USA though. I saw it as a counterattack against the USA. Even worse was March of which led me to conclude that members of the US military were in some ways even worse than nazis. OK the members of the US military have not lined up Jewish women and children and shot them at point blank range.
These events caused me to reach the conclusion that political policy in the USA is not driven by stupidity but by bad intentions. Then around I came across a document that was supposed to be a WW 2 Germans assessment made about where the allies would probably land. In this document it was stated that if the allies really wanted to win the war quickly they would invade the Jutland peninsula.
That confirmed to me that I was on the right. What did not occur to me at the time was to invade Sweden because Sweden was a neutral country. Then in an Iranian was telling me about the Soviet -English occupation of Iran during the second world war. This event was not new to me. I had read about it somewhere along the way but when ever it was that I had read about it the event did not seem significant to me.
But suddenly in a light came on in my head. The allies were certianly not averse to invading nuetral countries in the second world war. I had always thought that they never invaded Sweden because Sweden was nuetral. That understanding does not make sense anymore. I began to think about it more and I realized that for the reasons that I mentioned above invading Sweden would have been much easier than invading North Africa and would have had way more benifits.
Why was this strategy not followed. Why did those military officers below the Roosevelt and Churchhil and General Marshall and General Eisenhower and their British counterparts not raise holy hell about the unecessary detour to north Africa? A detour unnecessary for defeating Germany.
The conclusion that I reached was not that it was done for economic reasons. In the winter of shortly after the US entered the war it was not at all clear that Germany would lose its war against the Soviets.
- A Busy Moms Guide to a Green, Clean, and Balanced Life;
- Join Kobo & start eReading today.
- History in Briefs.
- Rommel myth - Wikipedia.
- Download e-book Rommel: Lessons from Yesterday for Todays Leaders (World Generals Series);
My bet is that the allied leaders were actually hoping on this scenario. With the German military stretched thin by occupation duty all over Europe the allies would have then invaded Sweden, and Spain if that had been necessary and defeated Germany with out even the need to use nuclear weapons which they probably would have done if the war was not over by then. They would have then colonized Europe between them. My interpretation has not fared at all since the war. As far as I know I am the first person to make these accusations.
I have never seen a book or a report anywhere than lays out the case that I have. A case that is at this point nothing more than what would be the equivelent of an opening statement at a trial. The first time that I made my thoughts public was at a Chirstmas Eve Dinner in Since that time I have only posted my thoughts on three or four websites and have not really gotten much response. As I mentioned above I suspect many people would say big deal the strategy that was followed in the war was far sighted.
Quote Page - The Military Leader
But I can not see it that way anymore. Prolonging the war got millions of people killed in order to damage the USSR. A person could say that the leaders of the west could not have known that. But they did no that they were devoping nuclear weaopons and that such weapons would make conventional war obsolete. Therefore I think that the risks that these leaders would claim that they were trying to avoid, if they had to come back and defend themselves, were dubious.
Therefore I think that if they claimed that they were preparing to defend the west in the next war against the Soviets they were telling a half truth. They were preparing to project the empire in to the Soviet Union. As I mentioned I still considered myself an anti communist in the s but the events of the first decade of the 21st century, including the bank failures and subsequent bailouts have led me to consider anti capitalism as a more important position than anti communism.
German defence minister praises Rommel, Hitler’s "favourite general"
That conversion no doubt made it easier for me to see what was really going back in the years to As far as I know an invasion of Norway was discussed but ruled out during the war. As far as I know an invasion of Sweden was never even discussed. The thing is how do we know what is said in private when people like Roosevelt, Churchhill and Eisenhower were all alone together in one room. I imagine that an article or even a book should be written that would expose this betrayal of WW 2 strategy to a much wider public.
The think is I do not have the resources to do that. As to why the Generals did not get laughed out of the briefings that they gave, or even get strung up by the neck when they proposed such stupid strategies the best answer that I can come up with is that military officers of the US and the UK are trained, and promoted, by their supiriors not to defend a Republic but to defend an empire. But this deception should have even been uncovered by even a second rate 22 year old reporter in When I look at a map of northern Europe I see a few dozen kilometers of flat terrain.
It shows that for all the talk of a free press in Europe and the USA the press has been nothing more than a lackey for the governments. Hi Curt, Sorry for taking so long to reply. I have not lost interest, but as a graduate student I am juggling a lot of different things. You offer a great deal of material, so give me a few days to process it all. I will get back to you, though. OK, feel free to contact me at my email.
If others are interested in this subject they can show their interest by making a comment here. You are a pile of garbage that thinks he knows something of German History. Claim you know have studied German History. Maybe you should go to Germany and read the works written from the German point of view. I know of course you read Hans Speidel and think you know everything German. Just another German basher from America. Intellectual, fat, pile of trash….. No one cares about your work.
Or some other plugin? Do you think your smart Professor Dyke? What we cannot be in Wisconsin on diplomatic business? Americans are disgusting. Every chance you get, call Germans and good Germans who served — Nazis. Your just trash. I will make sure I speak to my associates about your job Professor. Oh, YOU are right I was wrong. Your not a Dyke. Ha ha you are the scum of the earth….. One ugly looking girl…. Oh my god….
Related Rommel: Lessons from Yesterday for Todays Leaders (World Generals Series)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved