Best German WW2 General? Definitive Answer.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лют 2020
- I regularly get asked who I consider the best German General of World War 2 or similar question, well, it is time to settle this question once and for all. But be aware you might not like the answer, but it is time for some serious reality-check, after all education is one of the key aspects of my channel. Ideally, this video should settle all those “Best WW2 General”-questions once and for all - I know it won’t but hey one can dream right.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» UA-cam Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Stumpf, Reinhard: Die Wehrmacht-Elite. Rang- und Herkunftsstruktur der deutschen Generale und Admirale 1933-1945. Harald Boldt Verlag: Boppard am Rhein, Germany, 1982.
Thoß, Bruno (Hrsg.); Volkmann, Hans-Erich (Hrsg.): Erster Weltkrieg - Zweiter Weltkrieg. Ein Vergleich. Ferdinand Schönigh: Paderborn, Germany, 2005 (2002).
Margiotta, Franklin D.: (Executive Editor): Brassey’s Encyclopedia of Military History and Biography. Brassey’s, Inc.: USA, 1994.
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: To the Gates of Stalingrad. The Stalingrad Trilogy, Volume 1: September-November 1942. University Press of Kansas: United States, 2009.
Glantz, David et al.: Slaughterhouse: The Encyclopedia of the Eastern Front. Military Book Club: USA, 2002.
Creveld, Martin van: Supplying War. Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Frieser, Karl-Heinz: Blitzkriege-Legende. Der Westfeldzug 1940. 4. Auflage. Oldenbourg Verlag: München, 2012.
Stahel, David: Operation Barbarossa and Germany’s Defeat in the East. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011 (2009).
Condell, Bruce (ed.); Zabecki, David T. (ed.): On the German Art of War. Truppenführung. Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, PA, USA, 2009 (2001).
Keilig, Wolf: Das Deutsche Heer 1939-1945. Band III: Die Generalität des Heeres im 2. Weltkrieg. Podzun-Verlag: Bad Nauheim, Germany, without year.
Stahel, David: Operation Barbarossa and Germany’s Defeat in the East. Cambridge University Press: UK, 2009, p. 155
Stahel, David: Retreat from Moscow. A New History of Germany’s Winter Campaign, 1941-1942. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, USA, 2019.
Wettstein, Adrian; Rutherford, Jeff: The German Army on the Eastern Front: An Inner View of the Ostheer's Experiences of War. Pen and Sword Military, 2018.
Beaubien, J.P.: CHOSEN ONES - Terrible Writing Advice. Terrible Writing Advice: UA-cam, wherever that is, 2017. • CHOSEN ONES - Terrible...
#BestGermanGeneral #BestGeneralWW2 #GermanGenerals
For an extended edition with further research etc. see this version: ua-cam.com/video/oIkxPAC0o98/v-deo.html
Btw. I didn’t even discuss what elements make a “good general”, which usually a bit different for different armies and times as well, e.g., the leader vs. manager discussion.
>> Corrections
Thank you for making this video! I really love the history.
This topic reminds me a lot of statistics in sports, e.g. which forward in soccer is better. Player A scored more goals but against weaker opponents, player B scored more important goals and so forth.
But what it all comes down to is titles (well at least in sport). By this judgement I would simply chose the highest decorated general as the best and call it a day.
Absolutely fantastic video and a great message at the end. Will be calling you Doctor Military History Visualized I'm sure soon! :)
That's what I love about money, it allows you to compare stuff. With it you can compare an apple, with a sports car and a work hour of Obama.
Of course a comparison with so many unknowns won't be fair, but denying to do one at all is too easy.
There are ways like an ABC analysis which can make things and people more comparable.
As a business guy i have to compare things, with no similarities, unknowns and unknowns unknowns every day to make decisions.
Perfect information isn't possible in the real world anyway, only in models.
Fantastic video, thanks very much Bernhard!
Perhaps an idea for a follow-up video(s): you could consider breaking the question into various subcategories - e.g. best defensive general, best offensive general. Or modify that with early war/mid war/late war: best early war offensive general, best late war defensive general, etc. And lastly, perhaps 2 or 3 categories in the sense of divisions, corps, and army/army groups. That would give you a matrix of perhaps 18 choices (2x3x3), which would allow you to apply a bit more research and data to those specific subcategories, rather than just the one overarching, far too generalized (pun intended) "best general" question. Personally, I have opinions on some of these, but they're qualitative, not quantitative.
Best wishes if you do go for the Ph.D!
Best German General: Felix Steiner.
We just have to wait for Steiner's counterattack. Legend has it he still getting men for his attack on Berlin.
😂😂😂🤣
“STEINER!”
Tbh, I’ve always struggled to select “the best” of the losing side. This is especially difficult in military considerations. Again, imo.
Any second now... any second. Say while we’re waiting, has anyone noticed those weird things coming out of the moon?
@@locomotivefaox now that you mentioned it. It must be Steiner. His attack is finally happening.
For one thing, US Grant did in 13 mos what no other before him had done in 4+ yrs. From a mere statistical perspective, that’s noteworthy (at the least).
Likewise & from a strategic pov, the main fighting force became hemmed up (albeit not as planned) & tactical warfare became a new goal; which was successfully achieved, no? Not that US Grant was perfectly imminent; but I wonder if his roles in the E (and W) did not succeed in quelling a national division.
??
Imo. 🤷♂️
"To a mere 985 Generals"
Yeah, that definitely makes it easier.
985 possible videos for MHV and MHNV.
666 likes
Guderian, at least he could see Zitadelle was doomed before it kicked off.
Have more then one person analyze the data. Duh.
@@galatura never wakeup a sleeping giant 🙄
As an analyst, I cannot overstate how much I appreciate the blunt honesty of addressing the information gaps and misconceptions and flat out showing how- even though it's a click-bait title- people really shouldn't expect solid answers about this when there are MULTIPLE interlocking factors which go into this. I love the fact that you address leadership as a force multiplier and not an end in itself.
Follow this channel and you will find no click bait videos.
The title? Maybe. But not the content
I’ve always wondered how Rommel would have done on the Eastern Front. I know that Rommel felt as if he was looked down on by other German officers for never testing his abilities on the Eastern front and that this literally drove him to request a command on the Eastern front. I think it would bean extremely interesting video to theorize about this
Rommel was more of a divisional commander.
It’s interesting because the western front was worse in many ways, as a German colonel said: “when the Americans start using 155mm artillery guns as sniper rifles, it’s time to give up.”
@@looinrims The western front was not worse, Read about operation bagration and compare it to the Normandy campaign. When the assault elements of the soviet shock divisions advanced there's was next to 0 chance to escape. Also the artillery barrages were far more intense and indiscriminate.
@@konosmgr yeah the Russians like to empty ammo depots in the ground, we know that, accuracy is more important
And of course ask the eastern general that went west who wanted to visit the front in his plane just like he does in the east what happened to him, don’t go Russian fanboying here
@@looinrims The german order of battle had commited way more equipment to the eastern front as well as luftwaffe assets to mainland germany than to the western front. Your point is pretty stupid to be frank. Allied air supremacy did complicate tactical and operational matters but read any memoirs about veterans of the eastern front that were relocated to france in 1944 and see how they describe the different fighting conditions and what front they would rather fight in. Getting sent to frontline divisions in the eastern front was pretty much the equivalent to a death sentence. The eastern front basically had battles like operatiom zitadelle or the rzhev meatgrinder that were as big as the western front.
Ask a german, "what's the best joke you ever heard?" 3 days later he's still analyzing and explaining.
Ask a German what the best joke is he's ever heard, and he will engineer you an answer.
They are the best engineer lol
@@agente7202 I think you meant engineer(s)
@@SezarOroo ja
@@jaymexxu A German drives up to the Dutch boarder. The guard askd him "Passport please. Occupation?" The German hands over his passport and responds, "No, just visiting,"
Best strategist: Manstein. Best offensive tactician: Rommel. Best defensive tactician: Heinrici. Best theoretician: Guderian. Most versatile: Kesselring. Best on balance: Rundstedt. Best general trusted by Hitler: Model. My two Pfennigs anyway.
Manstein was best, in my opinion.
@@tcarroll3954 Yea, he's definitely a contender.
T Carroll I do agree, but he did blow a lot of smoke up his own rear end using his memoirs to amplify a lot of his victories.
I'd have voted for Manstein.
It was interesting to read that some of the other senior generals, after Model was transferred to the west, regarded him as weak in strategy.
On a strategic level, Manstein. On a tactical battle level, Guderian.
No, not Guderian since he only is sited for a strategy. If you study The Mongols wars, easily by yourself will notice that Guderian only took the Mongol tactics to a new level of tanks, nothing more. Guderian was in the french heat and he didn´t have done none over the most of Generals.
@@removilmata5377 This has to be a fucking joke
Isn't strategy the same as tactics?
@@bobafett2711 Strategy is focused on the overall goal of a campaign. What cities to prioritize, how to maintain supply, which forces fight where Tactics are the the finite details of how to achieve strategy, where to employ armor, how to use airpower in a battle, enveloping enemy forces.
Tactics fight the battle, strategy wins the war.
Watch more of this guys channel. A good military case study is operation Desert Storm during the liberation of Kuwait city which there are many videos about. It was a contained conflict with easy to understand strategic goals, and impressive maneuver tactics. Learn about it.
@@amatthew1231 Alright, thanks for the recommendation fam
Steiner, he’s planning the greatest counter attack to ever happen, he can’t fail
This analysis is the most German thing I have seen in a long time.
But good video!
Seems to be a compliment.
Hahaha indeed.
I have been working in a German company more than ten years. Can definitely relate.
Yes, questioning the legitimazy of the question instead of answering it.
👍👍👍As a German I absolutely agree! It is a caricature of how we are! Read my comment on the best General. That was chief of staff Ludwig Beck. He tried to avoid the war, resigned 1938 and committed suicide 1944 when the resistance plot blew up.
It's gotta be Steiner. When he finally attacks, the situation will turn to Germany's advantage!
HEY! What about General Wenck?!!?
I think Steiner is a bit too late for the counterattack...
I don't think it's gonna work dude!🤔
Mein Fuhrer...... Steiner.....
@@andreasbonaparte8171 ISH GLOBE!
I really enjoy your channel. I thought I spent a lot of time thinking about WW2 but you have me beat for sure. You have very enjoyable videos and I really enjoy watching about things I haven’t given consideration to yet
This video should be used on the post-secondary level in teaching research design. Great job explaining the variables' effects on the hypothesis.
Erich von Manstein-his theater of operations was the most vital to Germany’s survival, he did the most with the least amount of resources, and his generalship probably extended the war by at least a year.
Oh is that why he was called the Fireman? Because he scrapped a reserve out of a barren defense and prolongued the war? I think you mispelled Manstein - should say Walther Model.
Branimir Kunštek Model vs Manstein? Give me Manstein :)
Because Manstein told everyone he was the best.
Manstein was the best. From staff role (he planned the German strategy to attack through the Ardenne in 1940),he moved on twice to corps command before taking over the 11th Army. He took the Crimea and conducted siege operations to take Sebastopol.
At the time of Stalingrad he was an Army Group commander and had to patch the rupture caused by the Soviet breakthrough, although he failed to relief the 6th Army. He achieved success at Kharkov. So, he had held command from corps to Army Group ( unsure if he commanded a division before 1939). If Hitler had retained him and listened to him, the German Army would have fared better on the Eastern Front. He might have been made theatre commander in 1944.
War is a hard school for generals. In the British Army, the good battalion commanders of 1939 typically ended up as divisional and Corps commanders by 1944. So, what takes 10 years to attain can be achieved in 4 years in an intense environment.
@@rashidahmad7830 Manstein was the best because he said he was. If Manstein says he was outnumbered 100-1 and still won and you believed him?
ua-cam.com/video/sn-mQLC_Hr0/v-deo.html
You believed him when he says it was all Hitler's fault? You believed him when he blamed Paulus for the failure at Stalingrad?
Any one who believes the three alibis probably believes in Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny:
ua-cam.com/video/I98P1AxQRUM/v-deo.html
I did not expect Terrible Writing Advice to show up.... but it was appropriately used
next episode: "time to take a look at the worst plague the wehrmacht had to suffer throught all ww2... THE LOVE TRIANGLE!"
No one expects THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
@@thewitch7342 lack of access to resources, poor logistics systems and overconfident leadership?
@@fulcrum2951 that's quite the difficult love triangle to resolve
@@thewitch7342 Oh god Mattahharri tripple agent is the thing that imediately comes to miind
This is the only channel I would take this video seriously from. Great stuff, love your work man. Cheers from Canada!
Glad you enjoy it!
My favourite would be one out of Kesselring, Manstein and Model. The Wehrmacht's victories were based on surprise, individual enterprise at mid level commanders and poor/outdated tactics by the opponent. Their staunch defensive battles were truly the stuff to behold.
The best US-Generals: General Electric, General Food and General Motors ;-)
But seriously: Johannes Steinhoff en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Steinhoff
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Steinhoff
don't for get General Mills :)
Funny but true
The three horsemen of american survival
Yup you are right. American mass production and organization.
And Admiral Television
Sometimes I forget that this channel will leave me the best informed I can possibly be, but at the same time suck every last bit of fun out of the topic.
You are welcöme.
@@danjarvis6980 clickbait at its worse
Germans are not known for their humour!😤
I felt like I'd lived through WW2 waiting for the answer. And still it didn't come.
Mark Fulton is the #1 führend in der UA-cam-Geschichte
Great Video!! You are touching the considerations that I self struggle with when studying "The great Nordic War" (1700-1721) However, the material provided is less rich for that era in comparison to 2nd world war. That is also basically why I do "living history", trying to understand the realities and not meerly the theory of the whole historical scope. Thank you very much for your contribution !
yeah, I can imagine, although we have limited of sources in the archives it is still plenty.
Heinz Guderian, hands down imo! He was a soldiers soldier and tried his best to use tactics that best suit the mission at hand while not recklessly running headlong into a fight!!
German uniforms, definitely the coolest.
Designed by Hugo Boss
As an American I definitely agree
As I said elsewhere, if the cut and style of uniforms alone could win wars, the world today would be very different.
Who's the boss?
Very subjective
"can you at least name me 10% of the other 985 generals?"
I don't think most people even know there were a total of 985 generals serving in the Wehrmacht.
actually that was just the Army, for the Wehrmacht (Army, Air Force & Navy) the number is more than 3000.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Mannerheim was also involved, albeit a Swedish-speaking Finn with German ancestry.
I certainly did not.
wel i got to say im supprised about the number, but i can name 10 easy. lets count, von weichs, von kleist, paul "pappa" hauser, paulus, rommel, Ernst-Eberhard Hell, Friedrich Dollmann, Georg-Hans Reinhardt, Alfred Jodl, Hermann Hoth, Johannes Blaskowitz, Heinrich von Vietinghoff, Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb ...... and so and on and on.... ah and dot forget good old gudarian.
@@johansoons8413 I said "can you name me at least 10%..."
10% of 985 is 98,5. Let's make it 98.
Alfred Jodl deserves an honorable mention.
He was in charge of the Wehrmacht OKW.
Equivalent of being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He reported directly to Hitler.
"Military History Visualized is extremely tough, devious, and deceitful."
Vote yes on the PHD!
What good is making more PhDs if there are no jobs for them? 15 years ago I was specifically told not to pursue a PhD in history not because I couldn't hack it, and not because I didn't have interesting ideas, but because unless you got into a top 10 university program, there was no real possibility of attaining PhD appropriate jobs due a huge glut of vanity degrees and it would be an albatross around my neck. Sure in theory I could be one of those part-time proffs with no health insurance but I'd never so much as get a whiff of tenure.
Sophia M It is truly a problem now. I am very interesting in history but...I am doing a urban planning degree as major and may do a history minor degree as hobbies and interest. （History degree is very helpful to hobbies and also understding of world...but it is not easy to find jobs that have high payment with this degree...）
Sophia M i would hire you.
@@valhalla9688 I theory, because I have no PhD, what would you have me do?
If I had several million dollars and all thhe time in the world, I'd do what I call moral studies.
For instance, I'd explore the options of what Hitler had in terms of invading most of the neutral countries he invaded and what he could have done that was....less destructive. Right now I'm troubled by the notion Hitler had no real alternative other than to invade Norway and Yugoslavia once the British made their very threatening moves and that he may have had no practical alternative other than to invade Greece, because forcing Italy to the negotiating table would destroy his credibility as an alliance partner.
Obviously, Hitler was evil. But to assess him, we need to know what his realistic alternatives were at every step. And this is important because it will give insight on how to approach one's objectives while causing the least amount of harm while still achieving one's goals/will.
@@sophiam2095 I've read that employers actually don't like hiring phds, so the advice is to just list yourself as having masters in cv lol
No joke what they say about German thoroughness. I'm half way in and he's still analysing the data needed to analyse the data.
Bernhard Kast of course being Austrian .......
That's what grown-ups do. Children merely squeal loudest to be right.
Lmao
My grandfather was a career soldier who served in the British Army from 1897 to 1906, mostly in India and Pakistan. He was recalled to the colours in 1914 to train Kitchener's army of volunteers in basic arms drill and marching. He had been an inn-keeper and wasn't at all pleased at being dragged back into the army at the grand old age of 35 as a married man with four children. He had a brilliant mind, but for his social class background he would have been selected for officer training. He studied war as a hobby, especially the Boer War which he very narrowly missed.
He had known many Germans during his youth who had come to England looking for work. I remember him telling me once that "Your average German is an Englishman who has forgotten how to laugh! They take life far too seriously."
He never thought much of the German generals of WW1, whom he dismissed as aristocratic buffoons. However, in WW2 he held very different opinions. Every British student of WW2 admires Erwin Rommel, my granddad being no exception. His favourite though was Albert Kesselring, who was an airman, and not even a soldier "With mud on his boots!"
Smiling Albert...
Perfekte Darstellung. Beim Klicken aufs Video war ich getrieben von der Frage: Jetzt bin ich aber gespannt, von welcher Perspektive das abhängig gemacht werden soll? Und dann diese wunderbare, klare Antwort auf der Metaebene. 1a!
There is never any mention of the strength and quality of the German Army NCO Corp.
correct, initially this part: "A general is a multiplier of the ability of his men, yet, he can’t create them out of nothing." was like Staff officers, officers, NCOs and enlisted men. The whole NCO topic (not just for Germany) is actually on my list since 2016, I think I got a book on it in 2017, but hadn't time to touch it (it is also a training book, if I remember correctly). NCOs - unless I missed something - are generally acknowledged to be very important, but I hardly saw any literature about them. Also I think I got a German primary source on NCOs.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized For me it's the whole mix: raw material (physical and mental), training, and doctrine coupled with organisation and equipment. Successful Generals can marshal all of this to yield results. Successes bred from devolved initiative to a low level (auftragstaktik), calculated risk taking (in Manstein's case, Sichelschnitt and the later advance to the Dvina without flank protection), and the trust of his subordinates that maintains morale when times are hard (Manstein in the Crimea).
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Heinrici and Halder wrote about this during the first winter in Russia.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized loved your video but no one mentioned hasso von manteuffel i am no expert but he seemed to have a excellent record and well respected on both sides
@@dmkdm3343 Most people that comment on this type of video have not served. Many who study military history and Generalship have no service background either. What prompted you to pick on me in particular? For the record: 26 years service. Six as a reservist, twenty as a regular, of which ten years enlisted and ten commissioned. Joined as a Private, retired as a Major. Studied Manstein for my leadership study at Staff College and spent plenty of time in the field on operations at the sharp end. What is your service history, just out of interest?
I would pick one of the logisticians who advised against "Barbarossa" and were ignored...
Yup logistics destroyed them .... and totally predictable
What would have actualy improved by not doing barbarossa?......
Agreed. Thomas or Wagner etc
There were a large number of people who considered the eastern front a bad idea. Goring was one. Fritz Todt was another. In October 1941 he told Hitler that the only smart thing to do would be to tell Stalin it was all a misunderstanding and pull back out of Russia.
@@mikeforester3963 they might have met such an attack with all the resources that they lost fighting France and Britain. And with a fresh army and a nearly intact air Force and fighting a defensive war, the sorts of encirclements and defeats of the Russians that they ran up in Barbarossa could well have convinced Stalin that the game was not worth the candle. Of course there's no real possibility of answers to these counterfactuals.
IMO, Manstien had the best military strategic and tactical mind. He mainly led during the harder years of the war. Yet despite some losses, he knew exactly what needed to be done to give his forces the best chance. Hitler did not listen to him in the end, but if he had the defensive/then counter offensive strategy Manstien wished to employ would have been much more costly to his opponents despite the inevitable outcome at that point.
Your comment on Generals as 'force multipliers' got me thinking. One interesting game might be to view this through individual battles and to look at just a few factors such as comparative strength of opposing forces and to see which generals outperformed a simplified expected outcome algorithm.
Another factor to consider: what was the quality of the opposition.
yup, 'best general' is always subjective to the criteria chosen, length of service, and difficulty of task. if a general was promoted, fought a great battle and earned a great victory, and then was killed straight after, then they could technically be the best general because they had short length of service as a general, had a difficult task (but only for a short while), and managed to fulfill all chosen criteria during their 'window'. 'best' is always highly subjective.
And style of opposition too
ua-cam.com/channels/-VY81cp3P3vWVxT5o-MTxA.html
Arcane1954 Germany was more technologically advanced than us that’s why we viewed them as the biggest threat the problem is war is a game of math and higher numbers win not quality
That’s why Churchill liked to hype up Rommel, to make the British victory over Rommel that much more meaningful. Obviously it backfired when Rommel refused to be defeated, but references to him in Churchill’s speeches are the reason we think so highly of the Desert Fox to this day.
Manstein, who else? Followed closely by Kesselring. Smiling Albert kept the allies at bay in Italy until the end of the war. I think that's impressive.
Yes, definitely Manstein
@@bartdamesworth5406 Manstein was a master in self promotion with a mixed record on the battlefield. He and Patton are the most overrated commanders in second world war.
@@Ca-vz2yo Monty joining the chat
@@Ca-vz2yo You're also talking about Zhukov.
Manstein was the only one who achieved a victory while on the losing end of soviet pushback offensive (3rd karkov battle)
Probably Guderian. He was primarily responsible for superior tactics of the German command, and revolutionized the use of armor.
If you're including navy, Raeder. The German navy was able to accomplish amazing results with incredibly limited resources.
Whoever commanded the special forces (glider and para) also was phenomenal.
FYI: Rommel had one big problem (as my dad pointed out at a banquet, and one of Rommel's top (retired) generals confirmed to the officers gathered), Rommel's BEST talent was getting himself out of trouble he never should have gotten into in the first place.
And yes, my father was the greatest tank commander in Europe during the 1970's, and in the U.S. when re-stationed stateside. He wrote THE book on armor warfare for the U.S. Army, and was tactical advisor on the Army's first computer war game training system.
But he did benefit from studying the works of other tank commanders, including Rommel.
Tipping his hat to German Tank commanders, he actually gave his titled Armor warfare manuel a German title (which escapes me at the moment).
Anyway, GREAT PROGRAM you put together. Frankly, Hitler had commanders (and soldiers) of whom he was not worthy. But that's what happens when you elect a crazy man with a powerful personality; instead of a wise, temperate, tactical genius.
‘You better stop or you’ll get banned my dad is John Microsoft’
6:18 Eastern front: sword vs sword
France 1940: sword vs baguette
@ScepticalCynic with the sword you can take the baguett from your opponent
@@sergeantsharkseant "he who rules the baguette rules the world"
Kyle but they don’t keep it they eat it. Xd
@ScepticalCynic this is what french call pro move
Your mom is French
Wow, the Germans could have fielded a brigade of generals alone. Just imagine...
That sounds like it would be a British comedy skit.
@Michael Sullivan well, tipically quite a few German generals led from the front. Especially being famous ww1 infantry commanders. Rommel being the most known for this.
Yes. It's difficult for people to wrap their minds around the scale of the German invasion of the Sovet Union. In Iraq, the Americans were operating on the unit scale of Brigades. At the points maximum troop levels, US never had more than 180,000 soldiers in Iraq. A Brigade is approximately 3447-3900 troops, and during the 2007 'surge', 6 additional Brigades were deployed to bring up troop strength to that ~180,000 level. By stark contrast, the German Wehrmacht assaulted the Soviet Union in June 1941 with 360 DIVISIONS, not Brigades. This represented approximately 3.5 million troops.
In the Royal Navy today there are more Admirals than major surface vessels....
@@scottwhitley3392 wait I thought that a ship to command was a prerequisite?
You can read lost victories and see just how bitter someone was 10 years after the war about operation citadel. An entire operation, largest tank battle ever, last major German offensive of the war summed up in about 2 1⁄2 pages of bitterness, saying "yeah there was this thing and it didn't go well the end."
Walter Model was the best... he reworks the line by visiting the Frontline, he rebuilds lines from nothing, he did beat Zhukov and his meat grind a plenty. He averted Market Garden. He worked on both fronts.
He disloved his army so that they survived and yet refused to surrender.
I like Walter Model. He was a great defensive tactician and saved army group Center many times from overwhelming Soviet attacks.
Yup. I voted Model
His nickname was “The Führer’s Fireman”, because he was usually called upon (and succeeded) to save a situation that had gone out of control.
@@frankteunissen6118 In fact, he was sent to save Army Group Center during the crisis of Operation Bagration.
exept bagration
@@richardleeperales1546 bagration is a hopeless situation for Germany anyway, the disparity of armor, infantry and planes is too huge for any German general to pull off a miracle victory, not to mention the surprise element. Model was able to stabilise the line before Warsaw.
13:43 There is actually one time when they tried to do this with the Byzantine general Belisarius. Justinian gave him back command of the Italian forces after suffering severe setbacks, and then when asked why his underequipped and severely undermanned units couldn't perform any better, his answer was: "If it was just a matter of me being here, it's already done. I'm here and I've anounced my presence to every troop in the area. But I have almost no army to command besides my own personal guard and a few disperse and disorganised units."
He was a 6666 general Irl.
@@oscarromarioflorezcamargo6342 Totally.
My vote goes to Walter Model. Model stabilized the eastern front multiple times in desperate situations during the fighting 1943-1944 in the battle of Rzhev, Russian counter attack at Kursk, battle of Narva, and also stabilized the front after Operation Bagration. Model also inflicted the only defeats on the allies in 1944 during the battles of Arnhem and Hurtgen Forest.
It's a very thorough discussion as usual however indeed it would have made sense to ask the question: at which level and based on what criteria? Different situations, levels or roles require different skill sets and aptitudes.
"Achievement Unlocked: Quoting self Narcissist? Lazy? Efficient!"
I strive to gain that achievement.
Military History Visualized quoted Terrible Writing Advice.
And they say that infinty war was the most ambicious crosover event in history.
i agree, that was so epic
What do you mean?
Usually, the men who served are a pretty good gauge of telling who was best. But this probably means who they had most confidence in, not necessarily who was the best tactician. So, morale and logistics might narrow the field.
great video, great infographics, best explanation...unexpected!
Bet most of the comments here didn't went a minute into the video
LOL cut it out with that truth shit
Bruh
@Karl Schubert bruh
Yeah, a quick read of many comments makes me wonder as well.
Well, the guy himself said to post your picks in the first 10 seconds, so...
I agree with every word. I am a Military Science Fiction novelist and have lots of military history references in my writing. So, many of my readers assume me to be some kind of military history expert, which I am not; rather, I'm just a dabbler. But, based on their assumption of my expertise, fans often ask me who was the best general/admiral/commander in this or that war, or this or that period of ancient/medieval/modern history. I always reply with a question: "best at what?" For just one example of the problems of comparison, even when one is talking about only two generals at a time, people constantly ask me to compare George S. Patton, Jr. with Douglas MacArthur and are generally disappointed when I tell them that these two generals are simply not comparable. Patton is best known for his commands at the Corps and Army levels, while MacArthur commanded entire theaters of operations and also was the ruler of Japan in all but name for several years. Patton acted primarily at the tactical level (although very high at that level such that some of what he did may have shaded into the lower range of strategic operations, or maybe not--gray area here) while MacArthur was clearly operating at the strategic level for most of World War II. Patton commanded in North Africa and Europe while MacArthur was in the Pacific (and anyone who served in both theaters will tell you that they were not just two different theaters, but two different worlds). There is a limited range of things they did that were comparable during that war. For example, MacArthur's handling of the defense of the Philippines could possibly be compared with Patton's Army level commands in Sicily and later in Post D-Day Europe, but even there we would be comparing defense with offense. The only really valid comparisons would be between generals who went head to head, and even then there is usually someone who enjoyed significant advantages in manpower, logistics, quality of equipment, morale, infrastructure, training, or other factors. It's easy to give the nod to people at opposite ends of the spectrum (for example, anyone who doesn't think that Patton or Bradley were better commanders than Lloyd Fredendall needs his head examined), but the comparisons among the rest--even just one general against another--can't be done with any kind of quantifiable evidentiary basis.
So you're novelist but cannot write using paragraphs? this is anything but readable comment.
And both Patton and MacArthur were *deeply* flawed individuals.
There's an idea for a book... Patton under MacArthur's command. Hell, I'd pay good money to watch that 'counseling session'!
And I'm about to spit heresy, especially since I'm an ex cavalry trooper who served on the M1 Abrams in the way back. I don't think Patton was all that big a deal as a commander. I think Bradley was a better commander at each level of command [division, corps, army].
Juhani SVH nah you’re just stupid if you weren’t able to comprehend what he said.
@@carlhicksjr8401 Well to be honest, being very exagerated kinda became his value at one point. The Germans feared him so much at one point, as a distraction for D-Day he was more valuable than as General in Italy.
@@zomaariemand5650 Contrary to what the movie will tell you, Patton wasn't really 'feared' by the Wehrmacht. Nobody was ever assigned to profile him, for example. He was no more important to the Germans than Omar Bradley or Alexander Patch was... a recognized and talented subordinate corps or army commander, but beyond that he wasn't that big a deal.
The two Allied generals that the Wehrmacht were really worried about were Eisenhower at the strategic level and Montgomery at the theater level. In point of fact, Mark Clark in Italy worried OKW more than George Patton did.
This is all supported by surviving records and testimony from German staff officers.
Guderian, everyone else just built on his model and in all subsequent conflicts of the 20th century his tactics were applied. How Britain (in particular) and France who initiated Armoured warfare just 21 years earlier didn't take note is one of histories great mysteries.
My favourite is Guderian, because of his theoretical innovation of PanzerDivision. Then , Von Manstein and Rommel
I see that in a similar way. Only Hitler's stupid interference slowed him down in the Western campaign
Walter Model was also very capable, especially defensively
@@otgdy2081 Model was hands down the best defensive mind while Guderian was the best Offensive mind. Manstein envisioned the idea while Guderian executed it with perfection.
@@sandeepthakur493 Guderian wasn't very good at strategy. Operations sure, strategy not so much. Manstein's the opposite. Great head for strategy but only middling in terms of operations.
@@laurie1183 I said the same. Manstein envisioned the offensive while Guderian executed it to the tee 😅
Guderian had battles at three fronts, in the west, in the east and against Hitler. Guderian was a thinker, not only a school book operator. Guderian developed the ability of using radio for communications between tanks to perform better on the field. I consider Guderian the best German general during WWII.
A lot of people disliked this video because it was inconclusive.
I liked this video because it was engaging and constructive.
Constructive? Of what?. Do you mean instructive
@@styx4947 No, I called it constructive because it encourages dialogue. Like many of MHV's videos.
I really am pleased at your analytics and non-emotive approach. If governments and leaders of business and public organizations could use the same approach we would have much less wastage, lower taxes, and better services and products.
Fantastic analysis, I couldn't agree with you more!
4:45
Self-plagiarism isn't a joke, but you averted it perfectly. Also, that steam-like achievement notification is well-executed. It made my day better :)
Oh, I didn't even notice.
Also, thanks for the time stamp!
I love all the subtle jokes in these videos.
Thank you for pointing that out! I was actually paying attention to the data. I did realize this information was covered elsewhere though. But he did great on his achievement!
I knew when I saw the title you wouldn't actually name someone. Too many variables and not enough data.
Of the handful I actually know about though, I would pick Guderian or Mannstein.
@Joe Blow Isn't Guderian the reason the Germans caught the allies by surprise by going through the Ardennes? If so he's a good general in my books
It was Mansteins plan to go through the Ardennes- 'the sickle cut plan' and it worked perfectly.
Contro Bot who was the general that ordered the million tablets of crystal meth that fuelled the troops through the Ardennes, now that guy was the genius
Herman Balck
Although he isn't well known, his battles being in France, Greece and Russia, he protected the 6th Army from an early encirclement in the decisive battle of the rivers where he defeated Soviet Tank Guard armies with one Pzr Regiment and one PzrGrenadier Regiment.
I might have gotten some of the facts wrong.
Hey where do you get the list of all the generals and high ranking officers, because im searching for one of my ancestors who was either a general major or one rank lower.
try this, there is not list, so you would need to know the name and date of birth: www.bundesarchiv.de/EN/Navigation/Use/Using-specific-types/Searching-for-persons-and-ancestors/searching-for-persons-and-ancestors.html
I have one large lists of generals, but since you are not sure, it makes more sense to search for the person not the "rank".
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized thank you so much he was a officer that let the AA defense of a state and ended up surrendering his around 3000-5000 man to the british. Thank you so much
STIENER
STEINERS ASSAULT WAS AN ORDER
For not attacking when he had no army and the war was lost
DER ANGRIFF STEINER WAR EIN BEFEHL
FEGELEIN FEGELEIN FEGELEIN!
@@geoffreyM2TW what do you means he attacked and won germany the war
This time, the clickbait was justified, since the vid demonstrates that a popular question is a bad question.
But still a fun question, and UA-cam channels are supposed to entertain as well as inform - one hopes, or why are we all here? Wonder what part of Germany he's from lol
That doesn't stop people from debating who was the best commander of all time (Alexander the Great? Napoleon? Caesar? Genghis Khan? Hannibal?) even though they are all many centuries apart, belonged to different civilizations and led incredibly different armies in hugely different circumstances. So far, I found out the normal criteria is: "did they win a lot?", which it is, indeed rather unfair to many excellent commanders that had to face hopeless situations.
I disagree. I think we can still make some conclusion with the data we have.
@@KnightofAges true. But the answer is still Alexander the Great anyway. He was frequently outnumbered and fought a wide variety of enemies who used tactics he wouldn't have encountered before (perhaps most notably his first encounter with elephant cavalry), and still never lost a battle
@@unholyxeras8182 I would definitely also say Alexander...Ceaser was good but he did lose a few battles
Field Marshal Hans Guderian, father of modern mobile warfare. Achtung-Panzer! is a wonderful book giving insight found no where else.
Subscribed on the spot on the basis of this video alone. Superb reasoning.
My Guess... I'd say Fegelein, whoever that is. Somehow, somewhere in my head I just keep hearing someone loudly screaming his name ^^
My vote goes to isht Stalin! No clue who that is, but I remember isht to have been reviewed pretty favorably.
Haha haha FEGELEIN FEGELEIN FEGELEIN!!!
Bokoen1?
Well that was just about the most ominous intro you've ever opened with
surprise is of key importance in warfare ;)
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized seize the initiative and never let it go!
Time to finally settle the question.
Doesn't settle the question.😑
@@SirAntoniousBlock xD
My pick? Gen. Walter Model known as the "Fireman", brought in to save situations that were deemed an emergency or near hopeless. Excellent tactician and the best defensive mind on the eastern front. Also Albert Kesselring ranks highly as well. Holding onto Italy in the face of overwhelming Allied superiority almost until the end of the war.
Have to agree Model on defensive....Von Maisteine offensive
It’s gotta be Guderian, he was so close to capturing Moscow and could’ve, if not for the intervention of his Superiors. Along with his influence on mechanized/motorized/tank warfare.
The one who believes in the power of Mainstein shall be granted the powers of Mainstein (not my words but that's my opinion )
Manstein*?
Mr TIK
Jittery druid2 I am one with the Manstein!
It was the SS General . . Sven Hassel
@Lothar Nauth This classic 'projection' by the 'left' . . they call conservatives the Waffen etc. . whilst their own 'Antifa' are the actual practicing fascists aka pure communist/fascist 'projection'
My top 5 are as follows:
1. Von Manstein. Not only a highly astute officer with an incredible grasp of the strategic situation, but he was also able to turn a seemingly hopeless tactical situation into an opportunity. Additionally, he was arguably the father of the idea of 'sturmartillerie', came up with the infamous 'sickle cut' plan for Fall Gelb, successfully captured one of the most difficult fortresses of all time ( whilst dealing with a surprise landing at Feodosia, with satellite troops).
In all probability, if Manstein had been placed in overall command of Fall Blau, without the interference of Hitler, things would have turned very different. He almost recovered the strategic situation under terrible conditions during Unternehmen Gewitter, and if has been given the promised divisions, most likely would again have recovered something better than what happened.
Lastly, Manstein's brilliant counter-stroke at the third battle of Kharkiv restored the southern front line, and if Hitler had not dithered, or opted to allow Manstein to choose what course of action to take in spring '43, AGAIN, most likely things would have looked different.
2. Guderian. A very close second. Arguably along with Hart, and the soviets 'deep battle', the father of modern Blitzkrieg. A dependable if impetuous officer, also made the best of his job as Inspektor der PanzerTruppen.
3. Rommel. Need I say more? If Malta and Gibraltar had been neutralised before Barbarossa, and the OKH not treated the DAK as 'Rommel's little sideshow' this brilliant commander could have secured the entire Mediterranean for the Axis. A locked up the Mediterranean with a possibly Axis occupied the Middle East would have had dire consequences for the British.
4. Model. I'm sure not everyone's pick, as he was a dedicated Nazi, but he also had the respect of his troops, was able to convince Hitler of the advantages of an 'elastic defence' in a way that Hitler understood and was always very reliable. His only blemish is his half-hearted attempt at Kursk.
5. Von Balck. One could easily have put Hoth, Von Mackenson, Diettrich, Kleist, Rundstedt, etc, but after reading about Von Balck's masterful command of the LXVIII's Pz Corps during the defensive battles of '43 and '44, this guy was a born leader. Hitler thought so highly of him he promoted him to Army Group commander to which he was not suited, this guy needed to be riding upfront with his men, he was no staff officer or distant leader.
There was no such a general under a name von Balck ;) Otherwise yes, excellent in his role indeed.
@@sixtheninth yes there was … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Balck
What I appreciate about what I know of Manstein is that his performance was tested against the Soviets as they improved. Rommel, for instance, was fortunate in his opponents in Africa. I have no doubt that he could have taken Montgomery's measure if the latter had not been gifted with an ideal defensive position, and air and numerical superiority. Neither ever had what they needed to achieve their needed goals. Both excelled at their own levels, within their forced limitations.
@@thomashazlewood4658 Not to mention massive US lend-lease aid that Monty got. His victory at El-Alemein was bought and paid for by Uncle Sugar and the fact that 2/3 of Rommel's troops were Italian who were too ready to throw in the towel.
Kiowhattaisthetruth C Manstein’s miraculous counter attack post Stalingrad, and his genius sickle-strike against France, must be studied in every academy together with Cannae and Austerlitz. And put him at the top of the list.
I like the approach, it is true that no single factor ever gives the right answer. We need to move away from simple answers to complex problems and this is very well presented here - thank you, it doesn't take away our enthusiasm and fanship of people, but it relativises the reasoning - great thank you.
Fantastic video. Thank you so much. And yes, probably I am only saying so because it precisely mirrors my own thinking about Chosen Ones. On the other hand.............there's no denying that some individuals do have an outsized effect on the history of their times.
Really hard but I would want to say Model deserves more creed than many wants to give him.
Mattias Niord Here we go, he just made a 15 minute video on why it’s impossible to determine who was the best, but you internet experts have the answer to everything, congrats!
@@c32amgftw what
@@c32amgftw He also told us to write our guess in the comments. Here 0:10
@@c32amgftw He never said Model was the best, just that he deserves more recognition
agreed, but he was too agressive with the manpower and material in a time where it was already lacking
Clearly me. I actually managed to conquer the world when I ran Germany in Hearts of Iron. That Handorf Adler guy should have hired me to run his war...
Guderian. He made an entire generation almost 100 years after him believe what he wrote. Greetings from Württemberg!
I'll go with von Manstein maybe Guderian although my favorite personality was Rommel (before watching). After I watched the video initilly I though your suggestion that you were going to tell us was somewhat teutonic but of course you never delivered on that suggestion.On the othe hand, I appreciate your highly organized approach. Kant and Hegeo would be proud. The fact that you reached no ultimate conclusion is probably the right one.
But what is your favorite general tho ? Not who you consider the best, the one you have a "crush" on !
Gerd von Runstedt
Erich von Manstein
Felix Steiner
Not a German or an army general but mine would be General Sir Hugh Dowding, Royal Air Force Fighter Command. There's also Sir Keith Park, Royal Air Force 11 Fighter Group.
@@Eanki_ not a German or a army general or someone who was alive at the time but mine is Lionel messi
My favorite answer to this question is that there's a clear answer. The most successful German general was Eisenhower. The most successful German Admiral was Nimitz.
Aren't they french?
@@xxnukellamazxxlolz6373 , no, Eisenhower was Pennsylvania Dutch (i.e.- German) born in Kansas and Nimitz was a Texan of German descent.
Nimitz was in the Pacifac
@@kenbowser5622 , it was a joke, Eisenhower and Nimitz were clearly famous American war leaders, but because both are of German decent they could lay claim to the subject of this video i.e. Best German WWII Generals. Actually strictly speaking since the subject was German generals, Nimitz being an admiral doesn't qualify as a general, but that's being a little too pedantic for what was basically just a joke.
@@richardcramer1604 Dutch is German or Germanic :D
I did like this video!
I would have been most astonished to any individual name in this.
There are inspirational persons, there are good analytics, there are bold/careful/recless/persons who can not make desisions… and there are good soldiers, low level officers and so on that all affect how effective certain croup was in the field.
The great General is the one who is at the front, in the front line, thickening the broth for the enemy. That's why my number one is Eduard Dietil, because in Narvik, during the Norwegian campaign in 1940, at the head of a small unit of Alpine soldiers, and finding himself completely surrounded, he resisted victoriously for two months the attack of allied forces much superior .
I would be interested to see how different Generals would have performed in different theaters.
What if Rommel haad been in command during Barbarossa? What if Manstein or Guderian had lead the troops in Africa?
Could Von Rundstedt have Achieved what Rommel had if he was in command of the "Ghost Division"?
I think its too often overlooked how much the generals performance in dependent on the Situation
The way I see it was this,
Rommel was average general dealing with a British army group, if put for some reason as head of Barbarossa, he likely would have run to the same issues he had while in Africa (Supply starvation, lack of mechanized units capible for combat at any single time, and the big one OIL)
I couldn't tell you what would have happened if Manstein or Guderian lead troops in Africa, as, I feel like they would never take the option to go south...both the generals where built from the beginning for only European theaters and suffered for their commitment to same ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK! combat they where known for.
The issue, from the beginning is null...as generals in wars can't do the impossible, Hitler's Reich had structural issues, manufacturing issues, and especially late war no major general able to save the impossible position they where put in.
@@kyokyodisaster4842 - I would argue your comment about Rommel being an average general, mainly because what we do know about him from a historical standpoint says otherwise. I can't argue the rest of your statement though. Manstein and Guderian were probably too far up the ladder to be sent into Africa anyways. From what I've read, Rommel was sent because he wasn't particularly liked (or understood) by his seniors and was expected to fail. Ultimately they were right, but as if it were foreshadowing their own futures it was due to the same issue that eventually shredded all the German forces. As you said: the Reich had structural issues and manufacturing issues. They focused on grand sweeping efforts and overwhelmingly complex supermachines in small numbers rather than getting the job done with solid tactics (which they had but weren't allowed to implement) and good equipment in adequate supply. They couldn't create their needed supplies out of thin air, and they couldn't get nearly enough supplies to the troops who needed them when it counted.
In the end, the most brilliant of generals and the most inspired troops can do nothing if they don't have the tools they need to do their jobs. By the end of 1943, it was a matter of when they would lose, not if. Hitler doomed them all himself with his own ego and the blind rabid animals who followed him.
@@cerhart7172 Rommel still thought and acted like a company/battalion commander giving him more than a small corp would be a disaster. How many times did Rommel end up detached from his command with no control relying on subordinates.
The Afrika Forces were always going to lose. Rommel lost Alamein because he had no gas.
@@mazhar3447 - Agreed. I don't think that a different commander would have fared any better though. German logistics were horrid at best, and North Africa was a sheer impossibility for them to supply.
One makes a great leader, one a master of warfare, one a exceptional logistics officer and one a great drill instructor. War is a team effort, not won by one, but many.
Allright, I agree with this video completely, but I can't help but desecrate it's excellent points by giving my picks: Rommel if you think constantly flanking in the exact same way is "genius" Manstein if you love someone that argues with and throws fits at Hitler. But seriously, there isn't a great way to compare. A tactical genius could have been sidelined to staff, or a master of attack could have been in charge of the retreat to Berlin.
Fantastic answer to this oldest of arguments.
A PhD thesis on every WWII German Field Marshal would be a start but with so many parallel stories and interconnections the truth would still be elusive even for a team of researchers. Do your PhD and give us more insight.
Halder
IM JOKING IM JOKING
Hardly a joke. He was the best German general...
...among the Allies.
Feggelein is the best.
He was awful. They could’ve gotten the oil fields in the caucuses in 1941, but he was a student of the French campaign, thinking that Moscow was more important than the oil that they desperately needed
@@honotenshi Lol
@@ianglover7268 woooosh
Manstein by far. He’s the one who came up with the idea of attacking France through the Ardennes. His recapture of Kharkov and siege of Sevastopol equally impressive. He commanded large forces. Was skilled in both offensive and defensive operations.
Best WW2 video I have EVER seen. Brilliant.
Good video and I agree with your findings. I would say though that you could present a video on noteworthy generals. Ones that did enough either good or bad for it to be worth us noticing. Rommel is a famous one, although Montgomery thought that he was easy because he always did the same thing. So after examination Rommel might be recorded as a less than good general.
Rommel was very much like Patton. When both couldn't do the same thing they always did they struggled greatly. Tactically inflexible.
It's not really fair to Rommel, considering that when he always did the same thing, it was because he materially had no other choice. Fighting a war of attrition was never an option, so no wonder he always turned to the traditional outflanking maneuver to try and overcome his material inferiority.
Brilliant work, thank you. Loved the thought process expressed at the beginning on how to assess the cost of analyzing information, and something you didn't mention, which is that it could also be reversed in order to tell the level of logical truth any particular statement has, by looking into the resources that've been put into its research. Thanks again, may you have a great day - and year!
I gotta say. I really love how thoroughly you do your research, always look forward to your videos!
WOW! I had no idea the German Military had that many Generals. We could all get together and have a few drinks and discuss but I'm afraid we would all be dead without ever having resolved the question.
Tough to pick just one, too many great ones to mention such as Rommel, Guderian, Manstein, and SS General Felix Steiner.
Llevo tiempo pensando que debe ser alguno entre Mainstein, Guderian, Model o Dönitz , realmente no hay una forma de elegirlo o si ?
Shultz or Klink...it's really a toss up between those two.
Except the problem is Schultz is a Sgt and Klink is a colonel. From the extensive documentation and documentaries that exist about them, it would seem that they were fairly ineffective leaders
want to go to cold front klink?
Klink: *messes up*
Luftwaffe General: Do you want to go to the Russian front Klink???
@@olafraflokfar5539 general burkhalter was a heer general not luftwaffe thats a big blooper
Schultz had a completely accurate assessment of his abilities, and performed accordingly. Klink had a completely inaccurate assessment of his abilities, and also performed accordingly. Side note: John Banner (Schultz) was a WWII Concentration camp survivor.
Before watching:
Operational level general: Erich von Manstein
Tactical level general: Hermann Balck
One could argue that the "best general" has to perform great in both of those fields... so I'd personally go with Manstein, although Guderian and Heinrici might be a good alternative choice...
Defensive general : Model
@@moritzin1 Well, he also performed quite well in the offensive position (as commander of the 3rd armoured division, and the XXXXI. armoured korps during Barbarossa) but in the end he lacked the ability to suffiently argue against his supremate leader and therefore in the end had to take the responsibility for some major and unneccessary defeats of the Wehrmacht - so maybe not the best choice for the best general.
Eric Manstien
Yes and Yes!
Other high-ranking officers who have enjoyed a rise in popularity thanks to the "Downfall" parodies include the guy calmly running his pizza shop in the middle of a combat area - as well as his delivery guy who travels in a chauffeur-driven limo and wears a full-length Hugo Boss leather coat.
It's a pity that we couldn't also compare First World War generals too. I'd say Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck would be high on my list. He kept a force fighting the British in East Africa until the war's end. In fact he didn't lay down his arms until after the Armistice!! He pretty much could have schooled Mao or Ho Chi Minh in guerrilla warfare and I wouldn't be surprised if he was studied by them!!
2m25s into the video and I'm hooked: firstly by the forensic manner by which you narrow down the field of potential candidates, and secondly (but even more so) by the pugnacity of the challenge "Name 10% of . . . " That rates as "Ausgezeichnet!" 👍
Enjoying your channel more and more, every time I watch one of your productions. Many thanks - and keep it up 😊
Manstein.
Well, he's my favorit, at least. I allways use him in Hearts of Iron.
"My most able General" said Hitler. "Our most dangerous opponent" said the allies. Of Manstein.
If Hitler made Manstein supreme commander at the start of Operation Barbarossa, for sure Germany would of won WWII or at the very least not have suffered such a crushing defeat.
@@davidbros849 Germany would have lost ww2 even with Manstein in command. They lost because they did not have oil and good logistics to win the war.
@@AS-bu9rw There is an (pretty solid) argument that Manstein would have secured the Baku oil fields, and then it could have been different.
@@ericmyrs Securing the oil fields is one thing; getting them operational is another; maintaining the Baku position in the light of German intelligence deficiencies about the strength and capabilities of the Russian army is yet another (for God's sake, Uranus was their secondary offensive; Mars was primary). The oil fields could never be made operational for 6-12 months after capture.
David Morgan it would have deprived the Soviets of oil too though
He's absolutely correct, I do have a favorite and some that come close it isn't a fair assessment of the height of readiness, like condition of men and training as well as the equipment and the means of support at anytime during the war some Generals may be thought less of due to these condition and not on their true abilities. He makes a very valid point. Thanks for your video and hope you attain your goal in your continuous search for the facts.
Surprised that no one has mentioned Student! Always thought his flexible thinking, and making do with minimum resources, made him unusual amongst German senior officers, especially as he seemed to be nearer the "sharp end" than his contemporaries!