In terms of military strategy, those who innovate win wars while those who don't are forgotten. Wait, you legitimately thought I was talking about people's political leanings there? That's probably my fault. I think I got off track and forgot what I was originally saying.

Hitler had all the shiny toys, even some innovation in deployment with blitz tactics. No grand strategy game though, so he botched major battles by repeating old mistakes. Classification: just right of center militarily.

Washington innovated majorly. Setting up cannons on a hillside overnight at Boston? Bloody brilliant. Also had people shoot officers. Considerably left of center.

Khan? Off the charts left. Same with Mao. He let people chase him through China until all those chasing had died. Trolled.

Stalin? Dead center. Nothing new, just pure, unbridled spite commanded him. Oh, you wanna take Stalingrad? Fuck you, I'll stay thanks. Leningrad too? Fuck you more, I'll stay.

Jeanne d'Arc? Far right ambitions for her country with far left military prowess. It can be argued the strategies used were not hers, and that may well be so, but someone had to figure out how to counter longbowmen.

Guevara? Somewhat left-leaning but barely. Guerrilla worked against napoleon, and he employed it well.

General Grant? Terrible general who lacked any innovation. Only reason he started performing is he suddenly had rifles and Lee didn't. To the left of Lee politically, but barely. Now Sherman, that man was an innovator. Fucking terrible person though.

So there ya go. The missing link in the argument. If ya can't innovate, you make good fodder. Hitler would've made good fodder, and it boggles my mind why he's thought of as a good tactician. Does left leaning politics often go hand in hand with ability to innovate militarily? More often than not. There's a reason revolutions with widespread support often succeed against the superior armaments, manpower, and training of status quo leaders.