For an extended edition with further research etc. see this version: th-cam.com/video/oIkxPAC0o98/w-d-xo.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
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.
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!
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. 🤷♂️
👍👍👍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.
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.
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.
@@jaymxu 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,"
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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? th-cam.com/video/sn-mQLC_Hr0/w-d-xo.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: th-cam.com/video/I98P1AxQRUM/w-d-xo.html
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.
@@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.
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...）
@@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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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 :)
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!
@@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.
"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.
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.
Every one will nominate the well known German general or field marshals , i would like you to check Georg Otto Hermann Balck. This German General i would say is one of the best field commanders the German army produce during WW1 and WW2 .
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.
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.
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].
@@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.
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!!
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."
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
Hello, I am a student studying commerce and also a former soldier. Your channel means a lot, in the aspect of looking through history in a non-bias perspective. I believe any soldier or officer in WW2 or any war should be treated in the same dignity regardless of which side they fought in the war. I am interested in the German perspecive because they are constantly labled as the "bad guys" in the war, which I believe they are not. Every German soldier fought with the same beliefs as any other countrymen English, American, Polish etc. a belief to fight for and defend their country regardless of ideology. I thank you for putting history in a proper and real persecpive. Many passed away German solidiers would thank you for this and would help you through your PhD. Again personally I thank you for putting war in a real and statistical perspective.
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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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!
I hope I will contribute by researching the 340 admirals that were active in the period 1933-1945. For example the topic of my Magister's degree will be "Großadmiral Erich Raeder as Commander in Chief of the German Navy 1928-1943". There is only one biography written about him (Keith W. Bird, "Erich Raeder: Admiral of the Third Reich"), and also there is his autobiography. One day I plan to write a full biography about him, because the one from Bird is not very good in some aspects.
@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 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!"
But still a fun question, and TH-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.
@@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
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.
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.
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
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.
You jerk! I was waiting for you to say which one was the best! Lol. You make a very good point about trying to rate something like this. Thanks for your hard work and making it thought provoking.
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.
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.
@@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.
@Emil Fontanot That is the oldest excuse in the books, and it doesn't mean anything.. Kesselring was a cold-blooded mass murderer who killed over 300 innocent Italian men in retaliation for the deaths of 30 German soldiers even after the partisans who actually killed them were caught and shot. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and he got off easy.
@Emil Fontanot They won. That's what happens. They were fewer and further between. To the end, Kesselring never thought he did anything wrong, but he never stepped foot in Italy again, the bastard.
Calm down people, I am just referring to the name. If you're going to be a Field Marshall in the German Army you should be "Field Marshall Kesselring". Coolest field marshall name ever.
I love this video, might actually be one of your best. I think the key thing is to realize that it's nearly always more complicated than you think. Also there's a shit ton of people in the comments who did not get the message from this video sadly.
"Also there's a shit ton of people in the comments who did not get the message from this video sadly." True, people love their heroes. It's harmless fun though.
Panzer units : Manstein , Rommel , Guderian Army Group : Model , Rundstedt Luftwaffe : Kesselring , Richtofen Artilery division : Leeb Navy : Raeder , Doenitz
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...
@@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.
As always, really informative and detailed. Thank you for your hard work. Now... this is a fantastically irrelevant point, but your thorough discussion of the matter leaves little to add, really. I just gotta say as you quoted Terrible Writing Advice I got this weird shudder as I imagined your calm, factual tone mixing with T.W.A.'s cheery, almost melodramatic tone. That was not a combination meant to exist. Secondly: it seems like the only way to give an even close to proper answer to a question like this it to define it so fantastically narrowly that it becomes nigh meaningless. With that in mind: I would at first glance nominate Adolf Galland as best general if we look to the moustaches only. (I will, of course, revise this answer when I've trawled through the 3000+ potential moustaches, but the overwhelming tendency towards clean-shaven faces should narrow it down substantially.) Silly, yes, but it almost seems like it's not that much more silly than the starting question.
thank you! Yeah, his style is a bit different, now that you mention it. In the draft there is a proposal, similar to yours: the gengeral with the "best PR".
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.
"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.
@@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.
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
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!
Walther Model without a doubt, the fearsome Hitler's Fireman. Altho I am 100% sure there will be no definitive answer to the video, just how "what was the best tank of ww2" can not be answered like that aswell.
@@benh5366 Well, not too many occasions for him to be on the offensive. For sure he had no chance of success during Kursk. But, it needs to be said that he was the only german general who was against an offensive in 1943 when plans were formulated after the surrender of Stalingrad. He opted for a defensive approach to wear the soviets down and only then commit to another offensive.
I do agree that oversimplifying is not optimal, however there is one KPI (Key Performance Indicator) which should apply to each condition: efficiency. A good general will make the most of his resources, situation, know-how and information, including military intelligence. You can break down (aka oversimplify) efficiency in two categories: 1) achivements vs cost during offense with the following variables = advancement in offensive operations, number of ressources available, number of enemy ressources in front, number of casualties on his side 2) achievements vs cost during defense with the following variables = how long was the enemy delayed or stopped, number of ressources available, number of enemy resources, number of casualties on his side I do agree there's missing data, but we can have something with the data we have, perhaps for major operations where we do have the data. I know it's to simplistic and you will tell me that the quality of equipment and so on matters, but basically a good general uses what's in front of him. For instance, "Montgomery" was a "great" British general. I find this wrong. If you take a look at his achievements compared to the situation, he was absolutely not efficient (yeah market garden killed his KPI) but then again: huge resources, a bit of advance, a lot of casualties...
If you went strictly by your guidelines Best Field marshall = does the most with the least ? hands down that's Albert Kesselring. Just for what he accomplished in Italy alone. It didn't hurt that he was facing often mediocre or just plain bad Generals like Mark Clark, maybe the most hated American commander of WW2.
Guderian for attacking, Model and/or Heinrici for defense, Kesselring to entrap them, and Rommel... For what, especifically? I think Rommel for attacking too. As overall talents, Rundstedt and Manstein.
I consider myself fairly well read, and when I was asked by my colleagues who I would consider the best general in WW2 (astrophysics phds, like myself), my answer was somewhere along the lines of "I'm not sure by what parameters to measure 'best'. And even if I did, it would probably be some Russian guy in military procurement that I've never even heard of." So I feel somewhat vindicated.
Best General was General Marshal. Commanded zero troops in battle. Planned, designed, built, and ran the American army. An army that lost only one campaign, the Philippines, and one battle, Kassrine Pass. An unmatched record. He understood that in the next war Americans were not going to be landing in friendly ports, and planned accordingly. His post war record is directly responsible for there not being a WWIII.
You have to remember that Kesselring's opponents were Mark Clark and, above him, Harold Alexander. I'm currently reading Bidwell and Graham's "Tug of War" about the Italian campaign, and although they take nothing away from Kesselring's ability to give the Allies in Italy a very difficult time, he makes no secret of how often the Allies fucked shit up due to Clark's intransigence, ambitiousness and distrust of his allies, where they might have done great things if he'd taken a broader, less selfish view of the war.
Hello Bernhard (hope I spelled your name right), This was a great video in disguise, thanks for this. I myself am trying to decide whether I want to continue into higher education with my history degree. I think this video does a good job of explaining the problem historians have when trying to answer such sweeping questions as "best general" or "turning point." Historians are tasked with synthesizing such vast quantities of often sparsely-recorded data that can be unreliable, biased or just damn complicated and/or archaic. The general public tends to treat history as a linear timeline of events with simple actors like a play, and I think modern documentaries, while they do a good job of sparking interest in history, contribute to this trend of thought too much. just a quick note that the way you pronounced 'deceitful' as dee-SITE-ful makes sense in german, but in english, it's actually pronounced as dee-SEET-ful. :)
I've come to understand that the majority of people have simple understanding and want simple answers, most of the time at least. Of course, that also applies to me, at least whenever I'm tired (which is quite often), so I'm no better in that regard. But I _am_ a realist enough to accept "it's complicated" and "it depends on a lot of (uncertain) things" as the only valid simplified answer there is available. It's a bit unsatisfying, but at least it's more truthful. If I want to learn things that are more satisfying but not exactly true, I can always go read a fantasy book.
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!
Man, I LOVED this video! Great work! I work on an other field (geology) but had seen the same: how an almost stupidly simple question can be hard to answer. If you want to answer it correctly... Just a note: when a general is really good he is successful and usually upgrading - thus becoming also more famous. So, at the end of your quest you probably will find the list of the most known names: Guderian, Model, Rommel, von Rundstedt etc.
To me personally, The best German General is Rommel. When you have the emeny,I.E. British and French soldiers going to his grave in Germany and saluting HIM, many years after his death, that's respect. However, Manstien was the smartest. Rommel, to me, was the most popular. Just died in the worst way.
@@gustavditter Maybe so, however, Rommel was a professional soldier and the allies knew it. He wasn't a war criminal either. He knew how to fight a war.
Allies exaggerated his prowess to help explain away their incompetence in Africa. No German general in WW2 should be ranked “best” unless they were tested on the eastern front.
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!!
Sounds like me moving to different States. If there was a perfect one everyone would want to live there and it would not stay perfect. (lol) Context is necessary in any discussion of history.
Albert "Smiling Albert" Kesselring, The Italian Front was a slugfest and in no small part by his brillance in Defence. It's subjective on my part and means nothing really. But here we are almost 80 years after the fact and we are arguing the point The Second World War was really a tragic event than didn't need to happen but it did. Germany lost, the Allied Nations Won, it ended in 1945 and for some 1989!
it ended in 1945 dont give me that bullshit, respect to the soviet dead, we don't need an american telling us their version of pre school history narratives...
Guderian did not accept the effectiveness of the SG3/4, despite data being available after France. He slowed down it's production significantly in favor of ineffective tank models. The German army would likely have been a lot more effective without his lack of technological vision. Unlike Rommel or Manstein, I do not consider him able to win against a numerically superior, tactically up to date enemy with a mediocre leadership. Even though he was better than mediocre, i. e., a pioneer of modern tactics and strategies.
@@carldombrowski8719 ''Strike hard and quickly and don't disperse your forces'' The tactic of Blitzkrieg is explained in 'Achtung Panzer'' written by Guderian in the mid 30s..Had Hitler not diverted him south in August '41 to aid Von Kleist in surrounding Kiev ,,the Germans take Moscow the Politburo ousts Stalin and sue for peace ..Its in both Heinz memoirs and Kruschev gave a speech to that effect in 1954. while denouncing Stalin ..Hitler sacked him when he failed to take Tula ...Having said all that Manstein the author of ''Case Yellow'' the German conquest of Western Europe in 1940 and ''Manstein's Miracle'' the 3rd Battle of Kharkov 1943 and the man NATO consulted with on strategy to defeat Warsaw Pact forces in 1960s was the best general
@@desmondanderson665 You are aware that the brits invented Blitzkrieg but never implemented it? Guderian was maybe a visionary, but he was not in the top 30 @ Raibartroudrix
General Richard Johannes Pellengahr led the German attack through southern Norway in 1940. He retired to civilian life June 1st 1941. He might not be the best but he was a cool customer :-) In 1955, 10 years after Norway was liberated after 5 years of German occupation, he returned to Norway with his wife in a brand new VW beetle cab to show her were he led his men in combat. He registered in hotels with his title "General Pellengahr". In 1944 a memorial had been set up in a location were he had lost many men in combat. The memorial was destroyed by angry Norwegians in 1945. Pellengahr personally contacted local authorities and filed a complaint :-)
@happy gekko it’s worse than that, it made the Germans (or, Hitler?) conclude that no matter what, Norway would give into the allies when push came to shove, which lit a fire under the ass of what became the Norway invasion Altmark I mean^
@happy gekko also while the Germans may not have known about either of them they were correct in such an assumption considering the British occupied fucking Iceland, which I mean is a war crime right Britain? A war of aggression? Gah
before watching the video? von Manstein. After- I completely see your point. There is no definitive answer to the question- that the difference between a history buff and a student of history.
I probably could name 50 German Generals, but not 90, and certainly not 980, so that point is taken. To evaluate the "Best" I think it would have to be how much damage did his troops do to the enemy. It's a valid point that a greater commander with fewer resources would not be rated higher than he personally deserved, but isn't that a case of "A difference that doesn't make a difference?" How else are you going to evaluate a "Best". Von Paulus is mentioned. Going from staff officer (which is not meant for command) to commanding 300,000 man army. And loses it. But the Soviets took a million casualties as well. 3-1 ratio is not a bad ratio. It's just the Germans needed about 6-1 to win the war. Rommel had a far smaller force, 2 divisions, about 30,000 men, (the 90th Panzer Grenadier division was carved out of the two Panzer divisions Panzer Grenadier Brigades) and caused 200,000 casualties. Von Manstein however was in many battles, and had great ratios in almost all of them Kharkov 12,000 vs 85,000, Sevastopol 35,000 vs 300,000. And while he did not command troops in the France 40 campaign, the overall plan was his.
Phil Gardocki if I may correct you. • Paulus Never commanded 300,000. 6th Army was only MTOE’d (or billeted for about 220,000+, if at 100%. • (applause SOUND LOUDLY) about 3.3-1 is damn close perfect point sir! I tip my hat to you! If it was not for the equipment...especially Army group B. Anyway... • I do not know if you are a veteran or not? If yes what kind? I was Lucky, BLESSED! As a student of history and a specialist in communications I spent all my time I side an OPCEN (yes, I am intentionally leaving out all names, dates and locations in which I served), SUP-CEN AND SIG-CEN! That’s every body! This is how you judge a commander, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER SOLDIER. YOU COMPARE HIS PERFORMANCE TO WHAT WAS EXPECTED OF, HIM PERSONALLY AND/OR A MAN IN COMMAND RELATIVE TO HIS POSITION. General FeldMarshall Erich von Manstein beyond doubt, 2 levels above the runner up, was gifted in the art of war beyond my peon understanding. He commanded a division when he jumped over 3 heads (in the chain of command) to propose an original plan of attack against France on against the advice of THE ENTIRE GENERAL STAFF! If your favorite is among ten he needs to go! And brought France to its knees! Crimea!!! OMG! And Ideal natural fortress supported and reinforced by naval and air forces with 3 battleship turrets on 3 dominating hills, the taking of Crimea is the most undervalue military achievement in.... 3rd Kharkov you all know, But also in Kursk, HE BROKE THROUGH!! I saw somebody write Model. If Model only equaled let alone surpassed Manstein Kursk would have been a German victory because the USSR expanded their only strategic reserves temporarily checking manstein. And all with the moron hanging around his neck.. Anyway good day to you sir.
Gudarian. Von manstein made blitzkrieg possible gudarian perfectit blitzkrieg. And of was gudarian that defeated france with hes rush to the see. It was all him.
40 some odd years ago when I was in college I had a history professor that answered his own question. Who was the greatest general of all time? He said it could have been Wm Brown, or Harry Smith. Who were they you ask? Brilliant generals that never served during war time.
Exactly or how about the Generals who only were a part of campaigns where they had massive superiority and were highly successful. Why fight against a relatively even foe and maybe take damage, if you are skilled enough you may never have to.
The question is inherently overly broad and the person is usually asking something along the lines of who was the most successful general in a time of war. The question of opportunity (right place, right time) is arguably more important than inherent competence. The question gets even more muddled when the general is also a ruler because their political acumen is a huge factor (Napoleon, the Great Khans, the early Muslim caliphate, Alexander) and even some great generals lacked political influence back home to get resources they needed (Hannibal comes to mind).
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.
For an extended edition with further research etc. see this version: th-cam.com/video/oIkxPAC0o98/w-d-xo.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. 🤷♂️
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.
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.
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
"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 🙄
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
@@jaymxu 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,"
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!
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.
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
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
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 TH-cam-Geschichte
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.
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?
th-cam.com/video/sn-mQLC_Hr0/w-d-xo.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:
th-cam.com/video/I98P1AxQRUM/w-d-xo.html
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
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
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
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
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?
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
th-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.
Steiner, he’s planning the greatest counter attack to ever happen, he can’t fail
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 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.
"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.
Every one will nominate the well known German general or field marshals , i would like you to check Georg Otto Hermann Balck. This German General i would say is one of the best field commanders the German army produce during WW1 and WW2 .
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 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.
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.
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!!
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.
@@CallMeRito Totally.
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)
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.
@@lokenontherange 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.
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.
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
Hello, I am a student studying commerce and also a former soldier. Your channel means a lot, in the aspect of looking through history in a non-bias perspective. I believe any soldier or officer in WW2 or any war should be treated in the same dignity regardless of which side they fought in the war. I am interested in the German perspecive because they are constantly labled as the "bad guys" in the war, which I believe they are not. Every German soldier fought with the same beliefs as any other countrymen English, American, Polish etc. a belief to fight for and defend their country regardless of ideology. I thank you for putting history in a proper and real persecpive. Many passed away German solidiers would thank you for this and would help you through your PhD. Again personally I thank you for putting war in a real and statistical perspective.
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
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.
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?
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...
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?
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 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?
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.
This video should be used on the post-secondary level in teaching research design. Great job explaining the variables' effects on the hypothesis.
"Achievement Unlocked: Quoting self Narcissist? Lazy? Efficient!"
I strive to gain that achievement.
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
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...
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’
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.
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.
0:12 Heinz Guderian
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
I hope I will contribute by researching the 340 admirals that were active in the period 1933-1945. For example the topic of my Magister's degree will be "Großadmiral Erich Raeder as Commander in Chief of the German Navy 1928-1943". There is only one biography written about him (Keith W. Bird, "Erich Raeder: Admiral of the Third Reich"), and also there is his autobiography. One day I plan to write a full biography about him, because the one from Bird is not very good in some aspects.
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 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...
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
This time, the clickbait was justified, since the vid demonstrates that a popular question is a bad question.
But still a fun question, and TH-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
Subverting Expectations, but in a good way and forcing us to think more of a situations.
Indeed because TH-cam is not the same as actual officer training academies!
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.
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
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???
@@Olafr_Warrior 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.
You jerk! I was waiting for you to say which one was the best! Lol. You make a very good point about trying to rate something like this. Thanks for your hard work and making it thought provoking.
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.
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
Best Named: Field Marshall Kesselring!!!!
A brilliant general but a butcher who murdered 300 innocent Italian men in revenge for 30 dead German soldiers killed by Italian partisans.
@Emil Fontanot That is the oldest excuse in the books, and it doesn't mean anything.. Kesselring was a cold-blooded mass murderer who killed over 300 innocent Italian men in retaliation for the deaths of 30 German soldiers even after the partisans who actually killed them were caught and shot. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and he got off easy.
@Emil Fontanot They won. That's what happens. They were fewer and further between. To the end, Kesselring never thought he did anything wrong, but he never stepped foot in Italy again, the bastard.
Yessir
Calm down people, I am just referring to the name. If you're going to be a Field Marshall in the German Army you should be "Field Marshall Kesselring". Coolest field marshall name ever.
I love this video, might actually be one of your best. I think the key thing is to realize that it's nearly always more complicated than you think.
Also there's a shit ton of people in the comments who did not get the message from this video sadly.
"Also there's a shit ton of people in the comments who did not get the message from this video sadly."
True, people love their heroes. It's harmless fun though.
Panzer units : Manstein , Rommel , Guderian
Army Group : Model , Rundstedt
Luftwaffe : Kesselring , Richtofen
Artilery division : Leeb
Navy : Raeder , Doenitz
I was upset you didn't start the video saying Göring as a gaff.
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!
As always, really informative and detailed. Thank you for your hard work.
Now... this is a fantastically irrelevant point, but your thorough discussion of the matter leaves little to add, really. I just gotta say as you quoted Terrible Writing Advice I got this weird shudder as I imagined your calm, factual tone mixing with T.W.A.'s cheery, almost melodramatic tone. That was not a combination meant to exist.
Secondly: it seems like the only way to give an even close to proper answer to a question like this it to define it so fantastically narrowly that it becomes nigh meaningless. With that in mind: I would at first glance nominate Adolf Galland as best general if we look to the moustaches only. (I will, of course, revise this answer when I've trawled through the 3000+ potential moustaches, but the overwhelming tendency towards clean-shaven faces should narrow it down substantially.) Silly, yes, but it almost seems like it's not that much more silly than the starting question.
thank you!
Yeah, his style is a bit different, now that you mention it.
In the draft there is a proposal, similar to yours: the gengeral with the "best PR".
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.
Your work is of a rare quality. It tells you how far gone the educational system is when this guy is dishing video after video of great content.
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-Stardust 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
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
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!
I gotta say. I really love how thoroughly you do your research, always look forward to your videos!
Walther Model without a doubt, the fearsome Hitler's Fireman. Altho I am 100% sure there will be no definitive answer to the video, just how "what was the best tank of ww2" can not be answered like that aswell.
He was a defensive master but not as great on the attack. Still one of Germany’s best
@@benh5366 Well, not too many occasions for him to be on the offensive. For sure he had no chance of success during Kursk. But, it needs to be said that he was the only german general who was against an offensive in 1943 when plans were formulated after the surrender of Stalingrad. He opted for a defensive approach to wear the soviets down and only then commit to another offensive.
I'd give my vote to Erwin Rommel. Many give him credit as the best general of ww2 on desert terrain.
Walther Wenck.
I agree, Model was the reason, German could continue fighting in the eastern front, after Zitadelle.
I do agree that oversimplifying is not optimal, however there is one KPI (Key Performance Indicator) which should apply to each condition: efficiency. A good general will make the most of his resources, situation, know-how and information, including military intelligence. You can break down (aka oversimplify) efficiency in two categories:
1) achivements vs cost during offense with the following variables = advancement in offensive operations, number of ressources available, number of enemy ressources in front, number of casualties on his side
2) achievements vs cost during defense with the following variables = how long was the enemy delayed or stopped, number of ressources available, number of enemy resources, number of casualties on his side
I do agree there's missing data, but we can have something with the data we have, perhaps for major operations where we do have the data.
I know it's to simplistic and you will tell me that the quality of equipment and so on matters, but basically a good general uses what's in front of him.
For instance, "Montgomery" was a "great" British general. I find this wrong. If you take a look at his achievements compared to the situation, he was absolutely not efficient (yeah market garden killed his KPI) but then again: huge resources, a bit of advance, a lot of casualties...
If you went strictly by your guidelines Best Field marshall = does the most with the least ? hands down that's Albert Kesselring. Just for what he accomplished in Italy alone. It didn't hurt that he was facing often mediocre or just plain bad Generals like Mark Clark, maybe the most hated American commander of WW2.
my pick would be erich von manstein he fended of the soviets with very limited supplies and extended the eastern front for atleast 6 months
Eric Von Mainsten , Genuis , particularly his leadership and tactics at the battle of Kharkov.
It has to be Manstein! And, as his team, I would pick: Guderian, Model, Kesselring and Rommel.
Maybe adding leeb or rudesest? (Speeling mistake)
I'd nominate those you mentioned as top 5.
Because they told you they were the best and nobody questioned it.
Guderian for attacking, Model and/or Heinrici for defense, Kesselring to entrap them, and Rommel... For what, especifically? I think Rommel for attacking too. As overall talents, Rundstedt and Manstein.
@@fernandoreynaaguilar1438 He's a good tactician and strategist.
I consider myself fairly well read, and when I was asked by my colleagues who I would consider the best general in WW2 (astrophysics phds, like myself), my answer was somewhere along the lines of "I'm not sure by what parameters to measure 'best'. And even if I did, it would probably be some Russian guy in military procurement that I've never even heard of."
So I feel somewhat vindicated.
Best General was General Marshal. Commanded zero troops in battle. Planned, designed, built, and ran the American army. An army that lost only one campaign, the Philippines, and one battle, Kassrine Pass. An unmatched record. He understood that in the next war Americans were not going to be landing in friendly ports, and planned accordingly. His post war record is directly responsible for there not being a WWIII.
Me a Mexican but I just love your accent, my friend!
Taking all of this into consideration, who do you think is the best out of the Spice Girls?
Ginger Spice. She is a REAL spice!
posh spice... too hot
Sleep With You for a Trip to McDonald's Spice would be my pick
scarey spice
Sporty was the only one who could actually sing.
My own shilling on Manstein early war and a 50/50 on Model and Kesselring 43 onwards.
You have to remember that Kesselring's opponents were Mark Clark and, above him, Harold Alexander. I'm currently reading Bidwell and Graham's "Tug of War" about the Italian campaign, and although they take nothing away from Kesselring's ability to give the Allies in Italy a very difficult time, he makes no secret of how often the Allies fucked shit up due to Clark's intransigence, ambitiousness and distrust of his allies, where they might have done great things if he'd taken a broader, less selfish view of the war.
Hello Bernhard (hope I spelled your name right),
This was a great video in disguise, thanks for this. I myself am trying to decide whether I want to continue into higher education with my history degree. I think this video does a good job of explaining the problem historians have when trying to answer such sweeping questions as "best general" or "turning point." Historians are tasked with synthesizing such vast quantities of often sparsely-recorded data that can be unreliable, biased or just damn complicated and/or archaic. The general public tends to treat history as a linear timeline of events with simple actors like a play, and I think modern documentaries, while they do a good job of sparking interest in history, contribute to this trend of thought too much.
just a quick note that the way you pronounced 'deceitful' as dee-SITE-ful makes sense in german, but in english, it's actually pronounced as dee-SEET-ful. :)
I've come to understand that the majority of people have simple understanding and want simple answers, most of the time at least. Of course, that also applies to me, at least whenever I'm tired (which is quite often), so I'm no better in that regard. But I _am_ a realist enough to accept "it's complicated" and "it depends on a lot of (uncertain) things" as the only valid simplified answer there is available. It's a bit unsatisfying, but at least it's more truthful.
If I want to learn things that are more satisfying but not exactly true, I can always go read a fantasy book.
Great video. Its this kind of eye opener that the history camp need
Glad you enjoyed it
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!
Man, I LOVED this video! Great work!
I work on an other field (geology) but had seen the same: how an almost stupidly simple question can be hard to answer. If you want to answer it correctly...
Just a note: when a general is really good he is successful and usually upgrading - thus becoming also more famous. So, at the end of your quest you probably will find the list of the most known names: Guderian, Model, Rommel, von Rundstedt etc.
To me personally, The best German General is Rommel. When you have the emeny,I.E. British and French soldiers going to his grave in Germany and saluting HIM, many years after his death, that's respect. However, Manstien was the smartest. Rommel, to me, was the most popular. Just died in the worst way.
Ross Jones because the goebbels propagand, only
@@gustavditter Maybe so, however, Rommel was a professional soldier and the allies knew it. He wasn't a war criminal either. He knew how to fight a war.
Allies exaggerated his prowess to help explain away their incompetence in Africa. No German general in WW2 should be ranked “best” unless they were tested on the eastern front.
Popularity, personality, and generalship are two different things.
He was hopeless in Tunisia and drove off letting the British win a great battle so Rommel was totally over-rated
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!!
There were several good ones depending on the situation. None of them was perfect though.
Sounds like me moving to different States. If there was a perfect one everyone would want to live there and it would not stay perfect. (lol) Context is necessary in any discussion of history.
Albert "Smiling Albert" Kesselring, The Italian Front was a slugfest and in no small part by his brillance in Defence. It's subjective on my part and means nothing really. But here we are almost 80 years after the fact and we are arguing the point The Second World War was really a tragic event than didn't need to happen but it did. Germany lost, the Allied Nations Won, it ended in 1945 and for some 1989!
I mean, holding together the shitshow that Italy must had been in 1943 and 1944 is really worthy of praise.
And he wasn't even in the wermacht, but as you say a very good commander
@@waikukujk he was in the german army before 1935, when he left to become a CO officer in the newly created luftwaffe
it ended in 1945 dont give me that bullshit, respect to the soviet dead, we don't need an american telling us their version of pre school history narratives...
Heinz Guderian is my pic, but then im partial to Tank commanders
Guderian did not accept the effectiveness of the SG3/4, despite data being available after France. He slowed down it's production significantly in favor of ineffective tank models. The German army would likely have been a lot more effective without his lack of technological vision. Unlike Rommel or Manstein, I do not consider him able to win against a numerically superior, tactically up to date enemy with a mediocre leadership. Even though he was better than mediocre, i. e., a pioneer of modern tactics and strategies.
@@carldombrowski8719 ''Strike hard and quickly and don't disperse your forces'' The tactic of Blitzkrieg is explained in 'Achtung Panzer'' written by Guderian in the mid 30s..Had Hitler not diverted him south in August '41 to aid Von Kleist in surrounding Kiev ,,the Germans take Moscow the Politburo ousts Stalin and sue for peace ..Its in both Heinz memoirs and Kruschev gave a speech to that effect in 1954. while denouncing Stalin ..Hitler sacked him when he failed to take Tula ...Having said all that Manstein the author of ''Case Yellow'' the German conquest of Western Europe in 1940 and ''Manstein's Miracle'' the 3rd Battle of Kharkov 1943 and the man NATO consulted with on strategy to defeat Warsaw Pact forces in 1960s was the best general
Check out Erhard Raus.
I"m surprised this isn't getting carped on by the content creator on New Year's Eve...
@@desmondanderson665 You are aware that the brits invented Blitzkrieg but never implemented it?
Guderian was maybe a visionary, but he was not in the top 30 @ Raibartroudrix
1- Erich von manstein
2 - Erwin rommel
3 - Walter model
4 - heinz guderian
5 - lothar matthaus !
General Richard Johannes Pellengahr led the German attack through southern Norway in 1940.
He retired to civilian life June 1st 1941.
He might not be the best but he was a cool customer :-) In 1955, 10 years after Norway was liberated after 5 years of German occupation, he returned to Norway with his wife in a brand new VW beetle cab to show her were he led his men in combat. He registered in hotels with his title "General Pellengahr". In 1944 a memorial had been set up in a location were he had lost many men in combat. The memorial was destroyed by angry Norwegians in 1945. Pellengahr personally contacted local authorities and filed a complaint :-)
Phellengahr got many friends in the Norwegian army after the war. He also gave his campaign uniform to the armed forces museum at Akershus.
@happy gekko it’s worse than that, it made the Germans (or, Hitler?) conclude that no matter what, Norway would give into the allies when push came to shove, which lit a fire under the ass of what became the Norway invasion
Altmark I mean^
@happy gekko also while the Germans may not have known about either of them they were correct in such an assumption considering the British occupied fucking Iceland, which I mean is a war crime right Britain? A war of aggression? Gah
before watching the video? von Manstein. After- I completely see your point. There is no definitive answer to the question- that the difference between a history buff and a student of history.
Charles Burnham it’s still manstein
I probably could name 50 German Generals, but not 90, and certainly not 980, so that point is taken. To evaluate the "Best" I think it would have to be how much damage did his troops do to the enemy. It's a valid point that a greater commander with fewer resources would not be rated higher than he personally deserved, but isn't that a case of "A difference that doesn't make a difference?" How else are you going to evaluate a "Best". Von Paulus is mentioned. Going from staff officer (which is not meant for command) to commanding 300,000 man army. And loses it. But the Soviets took a million casualties as well. 3-1 ratio is not a bad ratio. It's just the Germans needed about 6-1 to win the war. Rommel had a far smaller force, 2 divisions, about 30,000 men, (the 90th Panzer Grenadier division was carved out of the two Panzer divisions Panzer Grenadier Brigades) and caused 200,000 casualties. Von Manstein however was in many battles, and had great ratios in almost all of them Kharkov 12,000 vs 85,000, Sevastopol 35,000 vs 300,000. And while he did not command troops in the France 40 campaign, the overall plan was his.
Phil Gardocki if I may correct you.
• Paulus Never commanded 300,000.
6th Army was only MTOE’d (or billeted for about 220,000+, if at 100%.
• (applause SOUND LOUDLY) about 3.3-1 is damn close perfect point sir! I tip my hat to you!
If it was not for the equipment...especially Army group B. Anyway...
• I do not know if you are a veteran or not? If yes what kind?
I was Lucky, BLESSED! As a student of history and a specialist in communications I spent all my time I side an OPCEN (yes, I am intentionally leaving out all names, dates and locations in which I served), SUP-CEN AND SIG-CEN! That’s every body!
This is how you judge a commander, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER SOLDIER.
YOU COMPARE HIS PERFORMANCE TO WHAT WAS EXPECTED OF, HIM PERSONALLY AND/OR A MAN IN COMMAND RELATIVE TO HIS POSITION.
General FeldMarshall Erich von Manstein beyond doubt, 2 levels above the runner up, was gifted in the art of war beyond my peon understanding.
He commanded a division when he jumped over 3 heads (in the chain of command) to propose an original plan of attack against France on against the advice of THE ENTIRE GENERAL STAFF! If your favorite is among ten he needs to go!
And brought France to its knees!
Crimea!!! OMG! And Ideal natural fortress supported and reinforced by naval and air forces with 3 battleship turrets on 3 dominating hills, the taking of Crimea is the most undervalue military achievement in....
3rd Kharkov you all know,
But also in Kursk, HE BROKE THROUGH!!
I saw somebody write Model.
If Model only equaled let alone surpassed Manstein Kursk would have been a German victory because the USSR expanded their only strategic reserves temporarily checking manstein.
And all with the moron hanging around his neck..
Anyway good day to you sir.
Gudarian. Von manstein made blitzkrieg possible gudarian perfectit blitzkrieg. And of was gudarian that defeated france with hes rush to the see. It was all him.
40 some odd years ago when I was in college I had a history professor that answered his own question. Who was the greatest general of all time? He said it could have been Wm Brown, or Harry Smith. Who were they you ask? Brilliant generals that never served during war time.
Exactly or how about the Generals who only were a part of campaigns where they had massive superiority and were highly successful. Why fight against a relatively even foe and maybe take damage, if you are skilled enough you may never have to.
The question is inherently overly broad and the person is usually asking something along the lines of who was the most successful general in a time of war. The question of opportunity (right place, right time) is arguably more important than inherent competence. The question gets even more muddled when the general is also a ruler because their political acumen is a huge factor (Napoleon, the Great Khans, the early Muslim caliphate, Alexander) and even some great generals lacked political influence back home to get resources they needed (Hannibal comes to mind).
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.