The organizational skills of FDR in getting the US thru WWII are frankly amazing. And when FDR knew he didn't know something, he had no trouble delegating. And the genius of that was, he delegated to the right people.

Now, historically, the US has a certain technique for fighting wars that rise to a certain threshold of aggravation, and that playbook isn't that hard conceptually to understand, but realize, there are a million details to it.

Oh, that technique for winning?


Throw resources at the problem till it goes away. Worked just fine for the north in the Civil War, and it worked really, really well in WWII.

(October 10, 2016 at 7:54 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Thatcher.

That's you trolling, since this is the second time you mentioned her, in hopes that someone would bite.

(October 10, 2016 at 7:53 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Being in better touch with my own deep flaws, I have more respect for how they rose above their own.

I can agree with that. But there are a lot of historical figures I can respect for what they achieved. Even such controversial ones as Napoleon or Cesar. Napoleon even more, since he certainly wasn't born to rule and to change history. His cleverness brought him there.

(October 10, 2016 at 8:48 pm)abaris Wrote:

(October 10, 2016 at 7:53 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Being in better touch with my own deep flaws, I have more respect for how they rose above their own.

I can agree with that. But there are a lot of historical figures I can respect for what they achieved. Even such controversial ones as Napoleon or Cesar. Napoleon even more, since he certainly wasn't born to rule and to change history. His cleverness brought him there.

I guess what I'm saying is that I admire inner achievements more, beacuse I think we're too often our own worst enemies. Folks who overcome that particular enemy to achieve greatness command my respect.

(October 10, 2016 at 8:48 pm)abaris Wrote: That's you trolling, since this is the second time you mentioned her, in hopes that someone would bite.

Trolling was not my intention, but yes it was the second time. I'll make sure not to repeat myself in the future.

(October 11, 2016 at 4:48 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Trolling was not my intention, but yes it was the second time. I'll make sure not to repeat myself in the future.  

Well, if it wasn't trolling, why don't you tell us why Thatcher is your darling? I mean, that's the intent of this thread, isn't it?

(October 11, 2016 at 4:50 pm)abaris Wrote: Well, if it wasn't trolling, why don't you tell us why Thatcher is your darling? I mean, that's the intent of this thread, isn't it?

Well actually, I might say one of my favourites.

She was a strong female leader who was an inspiration to women everywhere, funnily enough she wasn't a feminist either. Just shows you. She reversed the economic downturn of the United Kingdom back in her days of power after she inherited the mess from Labour. She stood up to greedy union officials like Arthur Scargill. She stood up to the Republican hunger strikers after they demanded POW status and not to mention she showed those Argentinians.

I didn't agree with her on Section 28, however. But I guess that was just the times...

Who's your favourite historical figure, or at least one of your favourites?

I couldn't help but notice that none of our jesus freaks dared say "jesus."

Either he's not historical or he's not their favorite.

(October 11, 2016 at 5:06 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Who's your favourite historical figure, or at least one of your favourites?

I already named a few, previously.

As far as Thatcher goes, she was all of what you mentioned. But, and that's a big but, since you always tend to only look at what you want to see. She was a lot of things you probably wouldn't agree with. I was old enough to watch her age. Back then I didn't get half of what she was all about. I totally agreed with her on taking a hard stance in the Falkland crisis and I didn't give a shit over what she did to the british working class. Now, looking back, my image of her has changed. Quite a lot actually. She more or less destroyed the unions, which is the major reason why so many british people have to cope with whatever the government dishes out. Not the EU, not some big conspiracy, but the absence of any real force fighting their corner.

(October 10, 2016 at 8:08 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: The organizational skills of FDR in getting the US thru WWII are frankly amazing.  And when FDR knew he didn't know something, he had no trouble delegating.  And the genius of that was, he delegated to the right people.

Now, historically, the US has a certain technique for fighting wars that rise to a certain threshold of aggravation, and that playbook isn't that hard conceptually to understand, but realize, there are a million details to it.

Oh, that technique for winning?


Throw resources at the problem till it goes away.  Worked just fine for the north in the Civil War, and it worked really, really well in WWII.

I once wrote a paper comparing/contrasting FDR's management style with Hitler's. It ... disturbed ... my prof.

Oh wow, I have so many.

I recently read Robert Caro's latest installment in his biographies on LBJ. Fascinating read, to get inside the mind of Johnson. I'd say he's my favorite at the moment just because it was so recently that I read about him.

But you can't go wrong with "Mad Jack" Churchill.

Quote:Running into battle armed with a broadsword, bow, and quiver of arrows was perfectly acceptable if you were fighting in the Hundred Years’ War or fending off some orcs on Middle Earth. But when it comes to World War II, such medieval weaponry looks like child’s play next to the technology of the time. A sword isn’t the most likely of defences against rifles and tanks. However, for John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming Churchill, nicknamed “Mad Jack,” there was nothing he’d rather arm himself with than a trusty sword and bow.

...

By May 1940, Mad Jack was the second in command of an infantry company. He always marched into battle with a bow and arrows and his trusty basket-hilted claymore by his side. Despite these weapons being wildly outdated, Churchill defended them, saying, “In my opinion…any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed.”

His medieval weaponry wasn’t just for decoration, either. During the 1940 Battle of Dunkirk—in which 300,000 troops became stranded on beaches and had to be evacuated—Churchill struck down a German soldier with a well-placed arrow. He was later seen chugging along on a motorcycle with his bow strapped to the side. A German officer’s cap was hanging on the headlight.