Andrew Jackson vs. Adolf Hitler?

Jackson vs. Hitler

  • Jackson

    Votes: 14 48.3%
  • Hitler

    Votes: 15 51.7%

  • Total voters
    29

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,592
#6
Odd comparison, but Jackson by far.

Jackson actually was a military man and commanded troops successfully in battle. Hitler was more of a politician and never rose above the rank of corporal during his military "career," imagining himself (wrongly) to be a great military strategist on par with Frederick the Great.

Jackson would also have beat the stuffing out of him in either a bare-knuckle brawl or a duel with pistols. :)
 
Last edited:
Feb 2016
4,358
Japan
#7
I’d say Hitler as a Strategist... he was able to knock out France, Poland, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Kick Britain out of Europe. Jackson was never really put in a position in which he had to demonstrate high levels of strategy. Highly localised fighting in the Creek war in command of essentially just a brigade.
New Orleans... he didn’t do much. Sat behind his barricades and watched the inexperienced British troops cock up their first attack.

Now. If your asking who was the better Soldier. Then Jackson hands down. But he asked who was the better strategist. Hitter made many good moves before cocking up with lots of success. Jackson never even operated on a level higher than brigade commander.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,592
#8
I’d say Hitler as a Strategist... he was able to knock out France, Poland, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Kick Britain out of Europe. Jackson was never really put in a position in which he had to demonstrate high levels of strategy. Highly localised fighting in the Creek war in command of essentially just a brigade.
New Orleans... he didn’t do much. Sat behind his barricades and watched the inexperienced British troops cock up their first attack.

Now. If your asking who was the better Soldier. Then Jackson hands down. But he asked who was the better strategist. Hitter made many good moves before cocking up with lots of success. Jackson never even operated on a level higher than brigade commander.
Hitler wasn't much of a strategist at all. His successes were primarily the work of subordinate generals. He just claimed credit for them. It's also worth pointing out that Germany's defeat, the worst ever inflicted on it in the entire history of the county, was entirely due to him. He bungled his way into a war with three great powers simultaneously, two of which had a much greater industrial output and greater manpower, and in a two front war. As a strategist, he was complete rubbish.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2015
1,850
Los Angeles
#9
Hitler wasn't much of a strategist at all. His successes were primarily the work of subordinate generals. He just claimed credit for them. It's also worth pointing out that Germany's defeat, the worst ever inflicted on it in the entire history of the county, was entirely due to him. He bungled his way into a war with three great powers simultaneously, two of which had a much greater industrial output and greater manpower, and in a two front war. As a strategist, he was complete rubbish.
But he didn't do it simultaneously.

He was fighting the French and the British, and Americans and Russians far later.

I am not sure how much superior were the French and British in terms of productions.
 

Similar History Discussions