I wonder what would have happened had Stauffenberg be successful and Guderian replace Hitler. Germany would still have to give up all the additional territories since allies had gained a lot of momentum till that time. But atleast Germany could have saved its faced as a murderous nation.
@silicon605 Here's the thing....I do know my military history. Here's another thing...don't get your military history (or any history for that matter) from the internet. I am sure you can post 100's of video's of crap, but they will just that. I can post a million video's that prove the world will end in 2012 and that aliens are sasquatches.....big fucking deal. If you want to argue REAL historical facts, let's debate.If you want to post horseshit, don't waste (pun intended) my time.
im actually related to Hinez Guderian, he was born in eastern Prussia now Poland, he was born less than twenty miles from where my great great great grandfather was then he and his family moved to the Americas in the late 1800s, although my last name is not the same
The funniest is that HEINZ WILHELM VON GUDERIAN wasn't German in fact but Prussian by birth, and Armenian by blood... just like Austrian naturalized conductor HERBERT VON KARAJAN born in the Balkans but originally Armenian... I've read once that GUDERIAN met once before the WW2 CCCP Armenian Marshall IVAN BAGRAMIAN and Soviet Prime-Minister (some years later) ANASTAS MIKOYAN whose brother ARTEMI MIKOYAN invented with MIKHAIL GUREVICH the MIG aircrafts ("MI"koyan + "G"urevich)
@zzhamstring von Rundstedt is said to have screamed at Hitler and other military officials "Make peace, you idiots!!!" during a meeting after the D-day landings, leading to his position being replaced - he was also commander of the Ardennes Offensive and dismissed in March 1945. Manstein also stood up against Hitler quite a lot regarding strategies at the Eastern Front, eventually being dismissed in early 1944. Many others were sacked/dismissed/transferred simply because they lost or retreated
@zzhamstring Erwin Rommel... He refused to execute Jews and POWs captured in Africa when he commanded the Afrikacorps and generally disobeyed Hitler when he commanded him to do such atrocities and finally he committed suicide awaiting his execution on Hitler's orders...
All I know is the German tactics and Military ideas are still used today. They are still studied. I guess they would be used more if most of the fighting today was more then Guerilla warfare. They did not say it but the US army blitkrieged its way into Iraq. lol
The jewish bolsheviks like Lenin, Kaganovich and Trotzky killed of millions of russian christians, invaded poland, tried to kill there the intelectual elite, politicians, schoolars, people in media and business, also the people. About 400.000+ were murdered. Everyone saying anything against jews in the sowjet territories was shot.
Then Hitler invaded Poland too. MY own grandparents are from Poland! The PEOPLE from poland actually cheered Hitler for the rescue from the jew controlled murderers!
@NearAbbeyRoad Then what do you call those other campaigns were massed tanks, mechanized infantry, and close air support were used?What would your definition of "blitzkrieg" be?
Not Blitzkreig, which was a conveyor belt of tanks and support. You need to pin the enemy against a wall (Channel) so as not to regroup. Break the belt and its stops. Allied incompetence allowed it to work in France. The Germans thought it could work in the USSR. NO Channel to pin them against, so they could retreat and regroup.
@NearAbbeyRoad Thats a unique definition of it.The way I understand it is that its more like a "mail fist," striking the enemy where he is weakest and pushing the advantage there in a somewhat "steamroller" effect.The will to resist would breaks very easily after early setbacks, as shown by the massive amount of prisoners the Germans took in the first years of the war.In Russia however,they didnt push the advantage to the necessary degree.
Read Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze. He highlights it. Obviously you hit at the weakest point. The steamroller will run out of steam unless the conveyor belt of support directly behind the tanks is not cut.
The Germans took millions of Soviet prisoners. Mainly because of Soviet incompetence rather than anything brilliant the Germans were doing. Blitzkreig in the USSR could not work as the supply lines were too long and not enough could move up them.
@NearAbbeyRoad I disagree,the vast majority of initial Soviet captives were from brilliant envelopments by the Germans which created "kessels" or pockets in which the Soviet troops would be killed or captured.You are correct about the logistics but it was not a forgone conclusion that the campaign would fail. Poor logistical planning was why it failed, not a major flaw in the actual idea of mechanized warfare and Blitzkrieg
@NearAbbeyRoad As far as an actual definition of "blitzkrieg" goes there is no set formula.The original minds behind it, Guderian and Manstein wrote memoirs,make no mention of this Channel and there were plenty of other barriers available.It was not a doctrine and is simply a name applied after the fact.In Robert Citino's German Way of War he states:"the term blitzkrieg remains the classic example of conceptual fuzziness.It can mean so many things that,in the end, it has come to mean nothing."
It is the English Channel. In France the truck drivers were on the drug speed to keep them awake needing to drive continuously. The conveyor belt was broke by DeGaulle from the side, but he was repulsed. The Brits stopped it from the front, with not a lot of troops, but too late. Because of the Brits Hitler ordered them to stop to get supplies further up the belt. In France it was a gamble only Guderian & Hitler approved of that worked because of Allied incompetence. USSR? No.
@NearAbbeyRoad I know it is the English Channel but why couldn't you substitute the Channel for the Baltic or the Black Sea?A water barrier is not the only way to cut off the enemy and a cornered enemy will often fight to the death,which is certainly not "blitzkrieg's" goal.The Allied counter-attacks in France were not coordinated and ill-planned, which is why they failed.The real power of "blitzkrieg" is its mental impact and it effectively destroyed the French high command's morale
The Soviets could not be pinned against the Black Sea or Baltic. Get it?
"The real power of "blitzkrieg" is its mental impact and it effectively destroyed the French high command's morale"
Absolute tripe! The Germans were made to look better than what they were because of Allied incompetence. The allies had more and better tanks and a larger army. They could have put all the air forces against Sedan and stopped the advance. The effective French "Hedgehogs" came too late.
@NearAbbeyRoad They in fact were pinned at Sevastapol and Leningrad. The best way to beat an army is not to physically destroy it but to destroy its resolve.History shows us that numerical superiority is not enough to win battles,especially if the larger army's moral has been sapped.The fact that the didn't concentrate on Sedan like you argue is because of the devestating impact of the German onslaught and the collapse of the the average Poilus's morale
@NearAbbeyRoad What makes the English Channel the only possible place to encircle and cut off an enemy?Is that the only place in the world where one can destroy an army?Read any book on war,besides Wages of Destruction apparently,and it will tell you the importance of morale in war.The Allied Generals were not stupid and they attempted to respond to German advances but they were outmatched by the German's use of speed and surprise.Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli all argue for swift action
@MrAquafan Fuller and Hart are kind of played up in the English translations of Guderians works, with the input of at least Hart playing no small part in this.The English,Germans,and Soviets all came up with the same ideas between the late 20s and early 30s.The English saw little need of them,the Germans embraced them,and Stalin's purges effectively stopped the Soviets efforts until the Wehrmacht was knocking on his door.
Guderian was a far better Geberal than Rommel ever was. Rommel was a enfant terrible using tactics that are far to intuitive instead of showing any real knowledge of modern warfare. Guderian was far more the strategiest with a very cool head!!!
Yesterday iv read the book ''Memories of General Guderian'' and i have to admit a simple fact,that man described Germany,the naz party,the war,Hitler and his followers with extreme precision and common sence.He even explained from his point of view the main characteristics if Hitler and his characters,hes reasons and hes errors.
Yeah, maybe, but what does it have to do with nazi-soviet parade in Brest ?
Btw. no idea how valid are "Memories" if he writes there that barely 8 Germans did in the battle of Wizna... I understand, keeping morale, pride etc but this is just lasughtable.
No its not about that,i was inteested to hear the opinion of someone inside nazy germany like Guderian and so i kept reading until the end.
The most memorable phrase is where he describes Hitler as a man with 2 sides,1 demon and 1 genius.According to him the demon side of Hitler won againts the genius and that is what started the military conflict in the first place.
He forgot the side which was incomepetent arrogant, i always laugh when people put Napoleon next to Hitler... the latter one had no military skills what so ever.
Sorry for typo errors, i ment "died" in the last comment.
@NEMESIS1999 If you want to read about life inside the Nazi regime read Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich, he was Hitler's favorite architect and the only one of Hitler's inner circle to "survive" the war
But still Guderian was not a fanatic like Himmler,he was just taking orders and it seems most of his actions were purely logical.i am an armenian myself and i understand the armenian nature quite well.
Can`t see relation between your "Armenian nature" and Guderian... was he Armenian?
I admit he was a good general and an expert on the armoured tactics, but there were also less honorable sides of his activity... like thretening executions of POWs to make his foes give up.
@VVojtekSoldierBear No he wasn'T Armenian. This is a myth based on is armenian sounding surname, However his name means nothing more than good john or in German guter johann hence guderjan or guderian !!!
@XenophonOfThebes Rommel,Manstein,Guderian should all fought in the eastren front and north afrika compaign should never be existed.Oh I forgot to tell you about this General The best general of all times.General Field Marshall Kesslring.thos 4 men combo can only be defeated by god I belive
@ppqq66 The fact is that up until the end he was not as confrontational with Hitler as he should have been.Up until the last few months he had a very good relationship with Hitler.Because Guderian kept his mouth shut Hitler gave him a very large "bonus" and he seized a lovely Jewish estate in Poland
"If Hilter will listen to Guderian in 1941, Germany is going to win the war in Russia for sure!!!!"
The Germans were never going to win in the USSR. Short of men and supplies all through with poor transport links. They thought they could do a France on the USSR
The two most important things you need to know about Heinz are that he was (before becoming a Panzer Officer) a Transport and Signals Officer. Those two things taught him that adequate supply and communications can overcome most obstacles.
@cf80to01 yep, people talk about the US's inherent superiority but we were only really involved in the last few years of the war.Patton was a bad-ass mother fucker but he faced an enemy who had already been fighting for about 3 or 4 years and was engaged on multiple fronts.Imagine Metz which Patton took months to take and think about what the Germans could have done if he'd got there in 1939 instead of 44
@panzertiger2000 Exactly! You realize of course, your fellow Americans will have you strung up for your comments, but you are 100% correct. I find it curious how often Metz is left out of Pattons' "resume". The reason is simply because it showed he was not nearly the military "genius" that mainstream historians would have us believe. Neither was dugout Doug, but that opinion will get a fellow hung in the lower 48 too. Why can't Americans embrace someone like Walker?
@cf80to01 I believe in objectivity when I study military history, its got me called such contradictory things as a facist and a communist but I dont really care. My personal favorite generals of the war were Hasso von Mantueffel and Erhard Raus. They were brilliant commanders at the division and corps levels, and the war would likely have gone differently had they been in higher positions.
@panzertiger2000 I also search for truth and objectivity, but they are hard to find. Personally I tend to champion Montgomery. I think he has been treated harshly because he was an ass and because Americans wrote most of the history books.
I agree that Mantueffel and Raus were superior to their Allied counterparts........but the war would not have ended differently, just later.
@cf80to01 Montgomery was not a bad general and his strategy fit the nation he was serving but I personally like men who were willing to lay everything on the line in a battle that could have incredible results.His disagreements with his american couterparts were note entirely his fault, the Americans were just as stubborn.
I personally believe that all wars could have turned out differently: if the Germans had destroyed the British at Dunkirk, if theyd captured Malta, or not attacked the USSR
@panzertiger2000 Personally, I think Monty does not get the respect he deserves for his actions in Normandy. His "slow and steady wins the race" tactics (and his drawing of German armour towards Caen) were the correct strategy. Once the Seine was reached he should have been sent to a training facility, because he simply could not react fast enough.
Could the war have turned out differently? Maybe, but it all would have depended on Germany defeating Britain which was unlikely.
@cf80to01 I just think he lacks some of the epic flair of other great captains. Gustavus Adolphus, Friedrich von Seydlitz, Joachim Murat, von Pannwitz, or Rommel...although he was ultimately more successful then these dashing commanders. He was however an able commander and a good strategist.
I think it is plausible that the Germans could have defeated Britain:destroy the allied forces at Dunkirk, destroy radar stations, and keep the US&USSR out of the war
@panzertiger2000 Let us play an imaginary WW2. Germany was never capable of invading Britain nor reaching a peace with her. If the USA had decided to restrict combat to the Pacific theatre, it would have only made a difference in time.... not outcome. The German forces could NEVER have overcome the Russians. Eventually (by '45 or'46) the Russians would have been in Berlin
@cf80to01 Why was it not capable of invading Britain?The British had feared a German invasion since the unification of Germany&rightfully so.If Britain had remained alone against the might of a German controlled Europe then there is little doubt Germany could have prevailed.
Victory on the Ostfront was not a forgone conclusion either.Hitler refused to focus on a single main axis of advance and this got him to the gates of Moscow,Leningrad,&Stalingrad.Had he focused on 1 of these he may have won
@panzertiger2000 Germany made little real preparation towards an invasion. Had the Reich thrown her entire weight behind it, perhaps they could have made a go of it but even then I would only give it 50/50 odds.
The Russians would never have surrendered either. The material from the USA would have still been delivered in the amounts that essentially won the war in the West. Hitler would have killed himself in '46 or '47, but the end result would have been the same.
@cf80to01 I don't think the odds were that heavily against the Germans, by this point they had the resources of most of Western Europe behind them.In Norway and Crete they proved that they could launch successful amphibious and airborne attacks.I think it is entirely possible that Operation Sealion could have succeeded.
The Russians did surrender in large numbers, and the Kremlin offered the Germans peace and land in the initial months of the campaign, the Germans just got greedy and said no
@panzertiger2000 Can you provide a reliable source for Stalin offering peace? I have heard the claim before but never a reliable source.
Could Germany have invaded the UK in '40? Unlikely since they did not control the skies which meant they could not prevent the RN from interceding. The only things preventing a successful invasion in '40 were the RAF and Hitler's hubris. For a short period, the only fully equipped and manned division in the UK (in '40) was Canadian.
@cf80to01 Its the same with me as far as the Stalin peace thing, but I am about to read a book on Soviet-German relations and hopefully that will shed some light on it.
I agree with you on the control of the skies thing, Germany needed it in before any invasion could be launched.The Luftwaffe's higher ups badly mismanaged the battle of britain.Goering made many mistakes,which he would continue to make throughout the rest of the war, but if the Germans had more competant leadership...who knows?
@panzertiger2000 The greatest advantage the Allies had was Hitler. If Kesselring had fought the Battle of Britain all of Europe might be speaking German now. I once read that by late '43 the OSI brought forward plans to kill Hitler. Due to enigma and the insight into how he thought, Churchill commented that it would be a mistake. Hitler had clearly begun his downward spiral and was far more of a benefit to the Allies alive than dead. Imagine if the war had been fought by Guderian?
@cf80to01 Definately, he was a much better politician than military commander, though he was a psychotic and unstable either way.Iv heard the same thing about the Allies deciding against killing Hitler.Ultimately they were right,Hitler squandered his resources in ill-advised attacks(Ardennes Offensive)and had a competant man been in his place the Germans could have likely prolonged the war by months or even years.With Hitler in charge though there was little chance of victory
@panzertiger2000 Of course, one can not simply blame Hitler. His Officers did swear an oath, BUT there should always be a loyalty to honour of country and truth, never to an ideology.
@cf80to01 Even if Hitler was assassinated somehow, a possible internal strife between the SS and the military would have broken out. A good number of Germany's military staff also looked down on conspirators of the July 44 Plot as disloyal - this includes even the most able men, including Guderian and Manstein.
@SuperBomber01 Indeed. That was my point.......a military that considered honour and loyalty such essential qualities allowed itself to use those atributes for pure evil.
"Transport and Signals Officer. Those two things taught him that adequate supply and communications can overcome most obstacles."
True. And in the USSR, the Germans were short of men and materials. They were going to de-motorize as they desperately short of rubber, the RN blockade was making a huge impact. They had only three rail lines into the USSR and short of rolling stock.
Guderian physically intimidated Hitler in meetings I think.
In Feb-march 45, Guderian was on 3 hours sleep a day and having to drive 4 -5 hours each day in both directions just for meetings. no wonder he was pissed off. his bp must have been dangerously high.
lebensbraum please if possible show my biggest respects to your, i may not be a european , but i feel that your family must be proud of such a valiant and brave man
Let's not forget.... although, his spearhead in France was a great success, it was Manstein's plan that orchestrated theoperation to begin with. Von Manstein was the greatest German strategist.
thers a reason he never went back to his hometown kulmhof prussia was turned into a deathcamp, he admits his family had hard times at the hads of reichskommisar koch, it was somthing he must have carried personaly, seems to be the sort of man he was to carry his guilt personaly and accept it quietly, no need to trumpet evryone elses cries of damnation, he just wanted to represent the men who served under him honerably show that good and decent men existed in germany.
I may not be proud of it but im related to him. It's still really interesting to be learning about him and that someone in my family has had a huge impact in history, even if it wasn' t a good one.
I read Guderian's book. He was a skilled tactician, and knew how to conceptualize objectives unconventionally. This brought him to the attention of Hitler, and he was rapidly promoted. In spite of all these gifts, and his acknowledgement that he considered the Waffen SS his "Brothers," he claimed to have absolutely no knowledge of the activities of the SS Einsatsgruppen! He claimed this in his book, and would not elaborate on this ridiculous explanation of events any further. He's a liar!
I think Guderian had a sense of Prussian Honor and morality. And i think he knew exactly what the SS Einsatsgruppen was doing, and he had great difficulty with it. But, like Manstein, he would not disobey his Prussian obligation to military professionalism. Near the end, he openly quarreled with Hitler until the dictator had had enough, and sent him off in March 45 for health reasons. Guderian died with alot on his conscience. He knew he served an evil man, but served anyway.
You may also read,if you read well,that he had tu serve,at least since the war was began,because he knew,that everything but a victory will destroy Germany as he wrote in his memories. He knew well,aswell as Goerdeler and the other conspirators from July20th plot and aswell as Freisler,that Allies will not make anything other than a unconditional surrender,because of Roosevelt´s stupid "friendship" with Stalin(or at least Roosevelt believed in it).
Churchill was just as big a proponent of Unconditional Surrender as any of the Big 3. Perhaps even more so in some cases. Shirer points out that these conspirators who believed that negotiations that resulted in anything less than unconditional surrender were "naive."
If you read the book,you may know,that he was against some Hitler´s opinions also when they were winning,such as the afair with Hitler sayiing "I belive Kriegsmarine,Luftwaffe but not Wehrmacht".Also the concept of invasion to Russia and Ardenn offensive in 44 was to guderian´s dislike.
@hammeredwappered But there were other men who ignored and even openly defied orders that they knew to be wrong.Rommel refused to carry out executions of captured Jewish soldiers and commandos,von Brauchitsch tried to stop the Einsatsgruppen from opperating in his command area, and of course von Stauffenberg did a more than any other german dared do...
And to find out more about what happened in March 45(Hitler before wanted to send Guderian to reconvalescence,but Guderian said "No",because of the situation - but that is all in the book and it doesnt seem that you read it well-enough). You may also read Cornelius Ryan´s book "The Last Battle",where in memory of ColonelGeneral Gotthard Heinrici and his head of staff Colonel Eissman the interview between Hitler and Guderian(with Busse present) is showed much more dramatically
Und würden wir morgen ohne die A-Bombe krieg führen, würdet ihr wieder & wieder eins auf den Arsch bekommen...KRIEG IST ABER SCHEISSE..erzählt dieses euren Führern..denn IHR seid am Zug
Manstein would be another candidate for best General of the war though; his Plan to defeat France in 1940, his siege of Sevestopol, his Counter-attack during early 1943 were all impressive. Maybe you could criticise him for Kursk, though it is hard to see what the Germans could have done on the Eastern Front instead.
Mansteins Sickle Cut plan came only into being after he consulted Guderian if it could be implemented. He himself hadn´t the knowledge of armoured warefare.
He was wrong about the strategy about how to deal with the D-Day landings (which he admitted after the war), but by then the war was lost for Germany.
I think Rommel was the tactical match for Guderian, but besides being right about how to deal with the D-Day landings, I believe Guderian was the better strategist. Rommel's neglecting to take Malta before advancing into Egypt, and talking about hitting the Soviets from the back door via the Middle East were certainly controversial ideas.
These are always interesting debates. Personally I think Guderian is either the best, or atleast among the best Generals of World War 2. While he borrowed many of the Panzer ideas from the British, he certainly prophecized the future of warfare.
He was definitely one of the key Generals in the Battle of France; rightly pushing ahead boldly and not giving the French a chance to regroup, unlike the the more senior and conservative generals.
@sdkfz162kingtiger I do agree that he was important in the history of German Armor...just not as much as he makes himself out to be in his memoirs.He didn't take his own book Achtung Panzer to heart and in reality attacked combined arms warfare more than he supported it.
Guderian commanded a panzer corps (3 divisions 1st, 2nd, 10th) in 1940, Rommel commanded 1 division(7th). In 1941, Guderian's 2nd panzer group is consisted of 4 panzer div. and 2 inf. div, Rommel' Afrika Corps at its height has 2 paner div. and 1 light div. Guderian will be at his best commanding a panzer army, Rommel a panzer corps.
Guderian has staff background worked as staff officer during WWI, took and finished staff courses, worked as chief of staff of high command in 1944. Rommel has no background formation in strategy.
Guderian has strong technical skills know every details about tanks, Rommel was infantry officer.
Guderian created german panzer force, so he is a better administrator in military affairs.
@ultraflanker But those are the very reasons men admire Rommel, he was not some General Staff Officer in OKW.He was not sitting back in a cushy command post, he was on the front lines whenever he could be,a very visiable presence to his men.No matter how high up the ranks Guderian went his opinions would always be 2nd to Hitler's.Rommel's decisions were made on the ground, many thankfully countering OKWs orders and saving the lives of men on both sides.
The NAZIS THE MOST POWERFUL KREATURES THAT HAVE WALK OUR PLANET POTENTIAL X TRUE EVOLUTION FIRE FIERCE PASSION POWER STAMINA DISCIPLINE TRUE WARRIORS KILLING MACHINES BRAVE BEAUTIFUL LOYAL TO DEATH TO THE MISSION FATHERLAND GERMANIA THE BLOOD FOR THE STAB OF WW1 RAISING THE FLAG TO THE END THAT IS NEVER AS LIFE PASSION POWER NEVER END NEVER TRUE GREATNESS 13/31 卐 HEIL HITLER 卐 ϟϟ 卐 卐 HEIL HITLER 卐 卍 ϟϟ 卐ϟϟ ϟϟ WAR HITLER 卐 RISE HITLER SPIRIT NOW VIKTORIA ϟϟ 卐
As Strategist/Overall Planers: Von Manstein (as Strategist) Von Rundsted (as Strategist) As Leaders in the Battlefeald: Rommel as Tatician(Leader from Front) Guderian as Tatician(Leader from Front) Hasso von Manteuffel(Leader from Front) For Defensive Warfare: Gothard Heinrici(Defencive Operations) Walter Model(Defencive Operations) If Hitler let them be in overall Command of the German Military!Germany couldew stand a Chanse of at least a Stallmate!!
PS- Guderian is my personal favourite. Model and Manteuffel may have been more briliant- but Guderian's much loved personality among his men as "Schneller Heinz" (Hurry Up Heinz) and "buy me the ticket to the last station" win it for me.
Monty was lucky in Africa- German petrol shortages were the decisive factor- not leadership.
Model?? his tactics/strategy leave much to be desired, Model was a feldmarschall more for his political reliability rather than his skill as a proffessional soldier. Model was more of a "yes man" to Hitler, Model was a good regimental staff seargent major,,at best!! In my opinion the best leaders would have to be Rommel , Manstein, "sepp" Dietrich and of course the father of blitzkrieg "Guderien"
"German Generals Talk (Paperback)" by B.H. Liddell Hart is an excllent work- where Wehrmacht generals discuss their perceptions. They state
Hitler was initially a brilliant strategist- opposed by orthodox Prussian vintage officers. But he refused any mobile defense- which would have successfully worn out the Red Army.
Though Hitler was 99% correct in the early days- this confidence in Hitler always being right, like him or not, was one of the major flaws of the Wehrmacht soldiers.
@purbanegoro I don't think the Japanese were "loved" particuarly in China,ex:Rape of Nanjing.While Hitler bears the brunt of the wars loss,his generals had a hand in it too.Hindsight is 20/20 and these generals are no exception to the rule.Their valor and personal courage in battle should have been used against Hitler before July 20,1944 and not all of their strategic choices were sound.
«You cannot compare this guy with the greats like Major Winters of the Band of Brothers Easy Company.»
UTTER NONSENSE. Guderian and Manstein could sweep the floor with Eisenhower or Patton, and lets not even mention Rommel.
Germany was an average european nation, fighting a much larger enemy. Even so, without the full force of Soviet Union, it would have probably invaded the US, sooner or later.
what if statements and world war 2 are straw man positions. Germany attacked the USSR so they faced the full force of the communists with allied support. invading the usa ? pish posh
@ll500 Which would have been worse than invading the USSR. Because its seperated by a big freaking ocean. Germany couldnt even get air superiority over britain what the hell makes you think they would have even been able to launch an amphibious invasion that would have been 20 times greater than the normandy landings? Guiderian and Manstein were incredible leaders I will not argue this, but even thier genius could not overcome germanys limited resources.
Germany had around 60 million. The were doomed from the start,. The German economy was not up to it. The British Commonwealth and the USSR dwarfed Germany's economy. Add the USA and the war would be over quickly. It should have been over in 1944.
@ll500 I agree with your preamble, up until the part where you shit out the words, "they could whipe the floor with Patton and Eisenhower". That's just incipent thinking. Patton would have dominated Russians with his boldness.
"Germany was an average european nation, fighting a much larger enemy. Even so, without the full force of Soviet Union, it would have probably invaded the US, sooner or later."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You cannot compare this guy with the greats like Major Winters of the Band of Brothers Easy Company. The best generals of the war were men like Clark, Bradley and Ridgeway.
in north american propaganda they are the best, in reality rommel,guderian and others were far more skilled tacticians, american generals won easily most battles because USSR had alredy weaken the nazis a lot
Not surrounding the French &British and capturing them as POWs was the greatest mistake ever made in war. It wasn't necessary for Germany to prolong the war as this certainly did. Germany lost the war at Dunkirk.
I wouldn't say that they lost the war because of that mistake (I think they made even greater mistakes in the east) but for sure, as von Manstein wrote in his book, the British wouldn't have been able to send forces to Africa if the Wehrmacht would have captured these forces in Dünkirchen
The Germans could not take Dunkirk. The rear guard was too strong. The British counter-attacked Army Group A with three divisions. Rommel thought he had been hit by five. Hitler stopped the advance. The Germans advanced beyond their dreams and were disorganized. Most of the BEF, and its equipment, had already left France by the time of Dunkirk. Many of the BEF were still around Brittany and left with their equipment. Only one third of the British army was ever in France.
Ha! Ha! Ha! At 2:20, the commentator speaks of the Guderian tank group but the movie shows the Kleist tank group. A big "K" is clearly visible on the back of one of the vehicles. How can you trust this kind of idiots?
I wonder what would have happened had Stauffenberg be successful and Guderian replace Hitler. Germany would still have to give up all the additional territories since allies had gained a lot of momentum till that time. But atleast Germany could have saved its faced as a murderous nation.
abhijitkaore 1 month ago
@silicon605 Here's the thing....I do know my military history. Here's another thing...don't get your military history (or any history for that matter) from the internet. I am sure you can post 100's of video's of crap, but they will just that. I can post a million video's that prove the world will end in 2012 and that aliens are sasquatches.....big fucking deal. If you want to argue REAL historical facts, let's debate.If you want to post horseshit, don't waste (pun intended) my time.
cf80to01 2 months ago
im actually related to Hinez Guderian, he was born in eastern Prussia now Poland, he was born less than twenty miles from where my great great great grandfather was then he and his family moved to the Americas in the late 1800s, although my last name is not the same
712criminal 2 months ago
The funniest is that HEINZ WILHELM VON GUDERIAN wasn't German in fact but Prussian by birth, and Armenian by blood... just like Austrian naturalized conductor HERBERT VON KARAJAN born in the Balkans but originally Armenian... I've read once that GUDERIAN met once before the WW2 CCCP Armenian Marshall IVAN BAGRAMIAN and Soviet Prime-Minister (some years later) ANASTAS MIKOYAN whose brother ARTEMI MIKOYAN invented with MIKHAIL GUREVICH the MIG aircrafts ("MI"koyan + "G"urevich)
TiagoAlmeidaCampos 3 months ago
@TiagoAlmeidaCampos prussia is germany for fuck sake
ericssson 2 months ago
I admire Guderian for standing up to Hitler to speak his mind, even if it meant to be dismissed or relieved of command.
Some other generals & field marshalls had done this. I am unable to recollect who they are?
zzhamstring 4 months ago
@zzhamstring von Rundstedt is said to have screamed at Hitler and other military officials "Make peace, you idiots!!!" during a meeting after the D-day landings, leading to his position being replaced - he was also commander of the Ardennes Offensive and dismissed in March 1945. Manstein also stood up against Hitler quite a lot regarding strategies at the Eastern Front, eventually being dismissed in early 1944. Many others were sacked/dismissed/transferred simply because they lost or retreated
SuperBomber01 2 months ago
@zzhamstring Erwin Rommel... He refused to execute Jews and POWs captured in Africa when he commanded the Afrikacorps and generally disobeyed Hitler when he commanded him to do such atrocities and finally he committed suicide awaiting his execution on Hitler's orders...
DarknessOfWolf 1 month ago
the best general of the war!
TheIdeasMatrix 8 months ago
gen. Guderian - childrenslaughter, womenslaughter, war crime. Typical represenative of the german animal horde...
badur77 8 months ago
read The Last Field Marshal by James Tague....its a book about guderian and its really really good
FthePolice666 9 months ago
All I know is the German tactics and Military ideas are still used today. They are still studied. I guess they would be used more if most of the fighting today was more then Guerilla warfare. They did not say it but the US army blitkrieged its way into Iraq. lol
thewulfone 9 months ago
the art of war...he understood it....
MrZeus169 10 months ago
Biggest mistake Hitler made was in sacking Guderian.
glimmer2158 10 months ago
@glimmer2158 ....and the dozen or so experienced general officers that were sacked with him
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
Guderiean got annialated by the T-34's in Russia.
Hellothasauras 1 year ago
Guderian is one of the very best generals in history. He is an honorable man and a model soldier.
Mqiu891104 1 year ago
Hurrying Heinz
rockfishcc8 1 year ago
ppl seem to forgot that Germany had allies.
klasco1991 1 year ago
Germany had 80,000,000 at start of WW2 US 130,000,000 UK 50.000,000 USSR 190,000,000
Bennewman11 1 year ago
The jewish bolsheviks like Lenin, Kaganovich and Trotzky killed of millions of russian christians, invaded poland, tried to kill there the intelectual elite, politicians, schoolars, people in media and business, also the people. About 400.000+ were murdered. Everyone saying anything against jews in the sowjet territories was shot.
Then Hitler invaded Poland too. MY own grandparents are from Poland! The PEOPLE from poland actually cheered Hitler for the rescue from the jew controlled murderers!
whatthehell81 1 year ago
@whatthehell81
You are an idiot!
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad You are dumb ass, only capable of insulting people.
whatthehell81 8 months ago
@whatthehell81
An idiot is an idiot.
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
tankgeneral?
dragonquest20 1 year ago
Respect to the greatest military brain of 20th century!
khurram664 1 year ago
I see that Guderian used an idea of combined arms from a Major General John Fuller of the British army to make Blitzkreig work
MrAquafan 1 year ago
@MrAquafan yeah thats right while the British and French rejected Fullers Idea
ozeangruen 1 year ago
@MrAquafan
Blitzkrieg only worked once, in the Battle of France.
NearAbbeyRoad 11 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad ...and in Poland, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Belgium
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000
Blitzkreig was not used in Poland. The Battle of France was also the Low Countries. It was not used in Yugoslavia or Greece either.
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad Then what do you call those other campaigns were massed tanks, mechanized infantry, and close air support were used?What would your definition of "blitzkrieg" be?
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000
Not Blitzkreig, which was a conveyor belt of tanks and support. You need to pin the enemy against a wall (Channel) so as not to regroup. Break the belt and its stops. Allied incompetence allowed it to work in France. The Germans thought it could work in the USSR. NO Channel to pin them against, so they could retreat and regroup.
Blitzkreig only worked once.
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad Thats a unique definition of it.The way I understand it is that its more like a "mail fist," striking the enemy where he is weakest and pushing the advantage there in a somewhat "steamroller" effect.The will to resist would breaks very easily after early setbacks, as shown by the massive amount of prisoners the Germans took in the first years of the war.In Russia however,they didnt push the advantage to the necessary degree.
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000
Read Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze. He highlights it. Obviously you hit at the weakest point. The steamroller will run out of steam unless the conveyor belt of support directly behind the tanks is not cut.
The Germans took millions of Soviet prisoners. Mainly because of Soviet incompetence rather than anything brilliant the Germans were doing. Blitzkreig in the USSR could not work as the supply lines were too long and not enough could move up them.
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad I disagree,the vast majority of initial Soviet captives were from brilliant envelopments by the Germans which created "kessels" or pockets in which the Soviet troops would be killed or captured.You are correct about the logistics but it was not a forgone conclusion that the campaign would fail. Poor logistical planning was why it failed, not a major flaw in the actual idea of mechanized warfare and Blitzkrieg
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad As far as an actual definition of "blitzkrieg" goes there is no set formula.The original minds behind it, Guderian and Manstein wrote memoirs,make no mention of this Channel and there were plenty of other barriers available.It was not a doctrine and is simply a name applied after the fact.In Robert Citino's German Way of War he states:"the term blitzkrieg remains the classic example of conceptual fuzziness.It can mean so many things that,in the end, it has come to mean nothing."
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000
It is the English Channel. In France the truck drivers were on the drug speed to keep them awake needing to drive continuously. The conveyor belt was broke by DeGaulle from the side, but he was repulsed. The Brits stopped it from the front, with not a lot of troops, but too late. Because of the Brits Hitler ordered them to stop to get supplies further up the belt. In France it was a gamble only Guderian & Hitler approved of that worked because of Allied incompetence. USSR? No.
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad I know it is the English Channel but why couldn't you substitute the Channel for the Baltic or the Black Sea?A water barrier is not the only way to cut off the enemy and a cornered enemy will often fight to the death,which is certainly not "blitzkrieg's" goal.The Allied counter-attacks in France were not coordinated and ill-planned, which is why they failed.The real power of "blitzkrieg" is its mental impact and it effectively destroyed the French high command's morale
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000
The Soviets could not be pinned against the Black Sea or Baltic. Get it?
"The real power of "blitzkrieg" is its mental impact and it effectively destroyed the French high command's morale"
Absolute tripe! The Germans were made to look better than what they were because of Allied incompetence. The allies had more and better tanks and a larger army. They could have put all the air forces against Sedan and stopped the advance. The effective French "Hedgehogs" came too late.
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad They in fact were pinned at Sevastapol and Leningrad. The best way to beat an army is not to physically destroy it but to destroy its resolve.History shows us that numerical superiority is not enough to win battles,especially if the larger army's moral has been sapped.The fact that the didn't concentrate on Sedan like you argue is because of the devestating impact of the German onslaught and the collapse of the the average Poilus's morale
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000
You need to look at a map of the USSR.
The reason the advance was not repulsed at Sedan was nothing to do with moral - it was was allied incompetence.
The Germans had some spectacular gains but nothing conclusive in WW2. Their economy was too poor to win the war.
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad What makes the English Channel the only possible place to encircle and cut off an enemy?Is that the only place in the world where one can destroy an army?Read any book on war,besides Wages of Destruction apparently,and it will tell you the importance of morale in war.The Allied Generals were not stupid and they attempted to respond to German advances but they were outmatched by the German's use of speed and surprise.Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli all argue for swift action
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@MrAquafan Fuller and Hart are kind of played up in the English translations of Guderians works, with the input of at least Hart playing no small part in this.The English,Germans,and Soviets all came up with the same ideas between the late 20s and early 30s.The English saw little need of them,the Germans embraced them,and Stalin's purges effectively stopped the Soviets efforts until the Wehrmacht was knocking on his door.
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
Guderian was a far better Geberal than Rommel ever was. Rommel was a enfant terrible using tactics that are far to intuitive instead of showing any real knowledge of modern warfare. Guderian was far more the strategiest with a very cool head!!!
CilicianKingdom 1 year ago
Guderian was of Prussian descent, says so right in his memoir, Panzer Leader.
thejake1453 1 year ago
@thejake1453 Your right his father Friedrich Guderian served as an prussian officer .Guderian was born in Culm west Prussia.
Preyhawk81 1 year ago
me > guderian
TomValedro 1 year ago
Armenian People
Haye89 2 years ago
Where`re the pictures of Guderian shaking hands with soviets and viewing soviet-nazi parade in Brest 1939 ?
VVojtekSoldierBear 2 years ago
Yesterday iv read the book ''Memories of General Guderian'' and i have to admit a simple fact,that man described Germany,the naz party,the war,Hitler and his followers with extreme precision and common sence.He even explained from his point of view the main characteristics if Hitler and his characters,hes reasons and hes errors.
NEMESIS1999 2 years ago
Yeah, maybe, but what does it have to do with nazi-soviet parade in Brest ?
Btw. no idea how valid are "Memories" if he writes there that barely 8 Germans did in the battle of Wizna... I understand, keeping morale, pride etc but this is just lasughtable.
VVojtekSoldierBear 2 years ago
No its not about that,i was inteested to hear the opinion of someone inside nazy germany like Guderian and so i kept reading until the end.
The most memorable phrase is where he describes Hitler as a man with 2 sides,1 demon and 1 genius.According to him the demon side of Hitler won againts the genius and that is what started the military conflict in the first place.
NEMESIS1999 2 years ago
He forgot the side which was incomepetent arrogant, i always laugh when people put Napoleon next to Hitler... the latter one had no military skills what so ever.
Sorry for typo errors, i ment "died" in the last comment.
VVojtekSoldierBear 2 years ago
@NEMESIS1999 If you want to read about life inside the Nazi regime read Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich, he was Hitler's favorite architect and the only one of Hitler's inner circle to "survive" the war
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
But still Guderian was not a fanatic like Himmler,he was just taking orders and it seems most of his actions were purely logical.i am an armenian myself and i understand the armenian nature quite well.
NEMESIS1999 2 years ago
Can`t see relation between your "Armenian nature" and Guderian... was he Armenian?
I admit he was a good general and an expert on the armoured tactics, but there were also less honorable sides of his activity... like thretening executions of POWs to make his foes give up.
VVojtekSoldierBear 2 years ago
Guderian is an armenian family name.
NEMESIS1999 2 years ago
@NEMESIS1999 No its not !"!! His surname is northern German for john the good ...Guterjohann, guderian!!!
CilicianKingdom 1 year ago
@VVojtekSoldierBear yeh, I think what he was armenian.
Haye89 2 years ago
@VVojtekSoldierBear No he wasn'T Armenian. This is a myth based on is armenian sounding surname, However his name means nothing more than good john or in German guter johann hence guderjan or guderian !!!
CilicianKingdom 1 year ago
@CilicianKingdom His great grandfather was Armenian who had moved to Prussia to escape the Ottomans.
RevLeft26 1 year ago
@RevLeft26 Haha...wonderful trolling
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
Removal of key military figures of the German Army.
That with the coupling effect of the cracking of ENIGMA ruined Germany. All of it done by the ineptness of the Fuhrer.
katey1dog 2 years ago
fuck nazi and neo nazi islamic iran
crepplin179 2 years ago
hein? where are you pointing?
StaffanGoldschmidt 2 years ago
@crepplin179 Yes and fuck your mother too
MyKerberos 2 years ago
hitler would dismiss anyone
3NUNS 2 years ago
Rommal are my favor German General too ,but compare to Heinz Guderian.
If I must choose who is better???
It 's like a 51 vs 49 I going for Guderian , that's my opinion :)
ppqq66 2 years ago
@ppqq66 Rommel is your favorite general because he is the best general that ever fought againts the western allie.
Erich Von Mainstein and Heinz Guderian are by far superior generals.
Still Rommel was a formidable general and should of been used on the main theatre of war... eastern front.
XenophonOfThebes 2 years ago
@XenophonOfThebes Rommel,Manstein,Guderian should all fought in the eastren front and north afrika compaign should never be existed.Oh I forgot to tell you about this General The best general of all times.General Field Marshall Kesslring.thos 4 men combo can only be defeated by god I belive
MyKerberos 2 years ago
He really are father of all German panzer staff and a true German hero.
One thing I like about him are ,he don't kiss Hilter ass.
That's why he never promoted to field Marshal and finally he got dismissed by Hitler!!!
If Hilter will listen to Guderian in 1941, Germany is going to win the war in Russia for sure!!!!
Guderian should be the Grand Field-Marshal
Of the German Army!!!!!!
ppqq66 2 years ago
@ppqq66 I disagree, Erich VonMainstein should be
XenophonOfThebes 2 years ago
@ppqq66 The fact is that up until the end he was not as confrontational with Hitler as he should have been.Up until the last few months he had a very good relationship with Hitler.Because Guderian kept his mouth shut Hitler gave him a very large "bonus" and he seized a lovely Jewish estate in Poland
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ppqq66
"If Hilter will listen to Guderian in 1941, Germany is going to win the war in Russia for sure!!!!"
The Germans were never going to win in the USSR. Short of men and supplies all through with poor transport links. They thought they could do a France on the USSR
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
hey, an assignment at school about this topic is there anything u guys know that could help me??
imygazy 2 years ago
The two most important things you need to know about Heinz are that he was (before becoming a Panzer Officer) a Transport and Signals Officer. Those two things taught him that adequate supply and communications can overcome most obstacles.
cf80to01 2 years ago 3
thanks for that
imygazy 2 years ago
@cf80to01 Those are undervalued branches but without them the combat arms would be crippled and deaf
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000 Indeed! That is why Guderian would have kicked Pattons' ass.
cf80to01 8 months ago
@cf80to01 yep, people talk about the US's inherent superiority but we were only really involved in the last few years of the war.Patton was a bad-ass mother fucker but he faced an enemy who had already been fighting for about 3 or 4 years and was engaged on multiple fronts.Imagine Metz which Patton took months to take and think about what the Germans could have done if he'd got there in 1939 instead of 44
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000 Exactly! You realize of course, your fellow Americans will have you strung up for your comments, but you are 100% correct. I find it curious how often Metz is left out of Pattons' "resume". The reason is simply because it showed he was not nearly the military "genius" that mainstream historians would have us believe. Neither was dugout Doug, but that opinion will get a fellow hung in the lower 48 too. Why can't Americans embrace someone like Walker?
cf80to01 8 months ago
@cf80to01 I believe in objectivity when I study military history, its got me called such contradictory things as a facist and a communist but I dont really care. My personal favorite generals of the war were Hasso von Mantueffel and Erhard Raus. They were brilliant commanders at the division and corps levels, and the war would likely have gone differently had they been in higher positions.
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000 I also search for truth and objectivity, but they are hard to find. Personally I tend to champion Montgomery. I think he has been treated harshly because he was an ass and because Americans wrote most of the history books.
I agree that Mantueffel and Raus were superior to their Allied counterparts........but the war would not have ended differently, just later.
cf80to01 8 months ago
@cf80to01 Montgomery was not a bad general and his strategy fit the nation he was serving but I personally like men who were willing to lay everything on the line in a battle that could have incredible results.His disagreements with his american couterparts were note entirely his fault, the Americans were just as stubborn.
I personally believe that all wars could have turned out differently: if the Germans had destroyed the British at Dunkirk, if theyd captured Malta, or not attacked the USSR
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000 Personally, I think Monty does not get the respect he deserves for his actions in Normandy. His "slow and steady wins the race" tactics (and his drawing of German armour towards Caen) were the correct strategy. Once the Seine was reached he should have been sent to a training facility, because he simply could not react fast enough.
Could the war have turned out differently? Maybe, but it all would have depended on Germany defeating Britain which was unlikely.
cf80to01 8 months ago
@cf80to01 I just think he lacks some of the epic flair of other great captains. Gustavus Adolphus, Friedrich von Seydlitz, Joachim Murat, von Pannwitz, or Rommel...although he was ultimately more successful then these dashing commanders. He was however an able commander and a good strategist.
I think it is plausible that the Germans could have defeated Britain:destroy the allied forces at Dunkirk, destroy radar stations, and keep the US&USSR out of the war
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000 Let us play an imaginary WW2. Germany was never capable of invading Britain nor reaching a peace with her. If the USA had decided to restrict combat to the Pacific theatre, it would have only made a difference in time.... not outcome. The German forces could NEVER have overcome the Russians. Eventually (by '45 or'46) the Russians would have been in Berlin
cf80to01 8 months ago
@cf80to01 Why was it not capable of invading Britain?The British had feared a German invasion since the unification of Germany&rightfully so.If Britain had remained alone against the might of a German controlled Europe then there is little doubt Germany could have prevailed.
Victory on the Ostfront was not a forgone conclusion either.Hitler refused to focus on a single main axis of advance and this got him to the gates of Moscow,Leningrad,&Stalingrad.Had he focused on 1 of these he may have won
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000 Germany made little real preparation towards an invasion. Had the Reich thrown her entire weight behind it, perhaps they could have made a go of it but even then I would only give it 50/50 odds.
The Russians would never have surrendered either. The material from the USA would have still been delivered in the amounts that essentially won the war in the West. Hitler would have killed himself in '46 or '47, but the end result would have been the same.
cf80to01 8 months ago
@cf80to01 I don't think the odds were that heavily against the Germans, by this point they had the resources of most of Western Europe behind them.In Norway and Crete they proved that they could launch successful amphibious and airborne attacks.I think it is entirely possible that Operation Sealion could have succeeded.
The Russians did surrender in large numbers, and the Kremlin offered the Germans peace and land in the initial months of the campaign, the Germans just got greedy and said no
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000 Can you provide a reliable source for Stalin offering peace? I have heard the claim before but never a reliable source.
Could Germany have invaded the UK in '40? Unlikely since they did not control the skies which meant they could not prevent the RN from interceding. The only things preventing a successful invasion in '40 were the RAF and Hitler's hubris. For a short period, the only fully equipped and manned division in the UK (in '40) was Canadian.
cf80to01 8 months ago
@cf80to01 Its the same with me as far as the Stalin peace thing, but I am about to read a book on Soviet-German relations and hopefully that will shed some light on it.
I agree with you on the control of the skies thing, Germany needed it in before any invasion could be launched.The Luftwaffe's higher ups badly mismanaged the battle of britain.Goering made many mistakes,which he would continue to make throughout the rest of the war, but if the Germans had more competant leadership...who knows?
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000 The greatest advantage the Allies had was Hitler. If Kesselring had fought the Battle of Britain all of Europe might be speaking German now. I once read that by late '43 the OSI brought forward plans to kill Hitler. Due to enigma and the insight into how he thought, Churchill commented that it would be a mistake. Hitler had clearly begun his downward spiral and was far more of a benefit to the Allies alive than dead. Imagine if the war had been fought by Guderian?
cf80to01 8 months ago
@cf80to01 Definately, he was a much better politician than military commander, though he was a psychotic and unstable either way.Iv heard the same thing about the Allies deciding against killing Hitler.Ultimately they were right,Hitler squandered his resources in ill-advised attacks(Ardennes Offensive)and had a competant man been in his place the Germans could have likely prolonged the war by months or even years.With Hitler in charge though there was little chance of victory
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000 Of course, one can not simply blame Hitler. His Officers did swear an oath, BUT there should always be a loyalty to honour of country and truth, never to an ideology.
cf80to01 7 months ago
@cf80to01 Even if Hitler was assassinated somehow, a possible internal strife between the SS and the military would have broken out. A good number of Germany's military staff also looked down on conspirators of the July 44 Plot as disloyal - this includes even the most able men, including Guderian and Manstein.
SuperBomber01 2 months ago
@SuperBomber01 Indeed. That was my point.......a military that considered honour and loyalty such essential qualities allowed itself to use those atributes for pure evil.
cf80to01 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cf80to01
"Transport and Signals Officer. Those two things taught him that adequate supply and communications can overcome most obstacles."
True. And in the USSR, the Germans were short of men and materials. They were going to de-motorize as they desperately short of rubber, the RN blockade was making a huge impact. They had only three rail lines into the USSR and short of rolling stock.
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
Guderian physically intimidated Hitler in meetings I think.
In Feb-march 45, Guderian was on 3 hours sleep a day and having to drive 4 -5 hours each day in both directions just for meetings. no wonder he was pissed off. his bp must have been dangerously high.
5000433 2 years ago
ahhh guderian
my uncle surved under him driving a panzer 3
he had the chance to meet him once and stated what a beastly bull of a man he was
lebensbraum5 2 years ago
lebensbraum please if possible show my biggest respects to your, i may not be a european , but i feel that your family must be proud of such a valiant and brave man
regards from mexico.....
xeones2345 2 years ago
thanks
and we are proud
thats more than a lotta folks can say about relatives in the german army during WWII
lebensbraum5 2 years ago
Let's not forget.... although, his spearhead in France was a great success, it was Manstein's plan that orchestrated theoperation to begin with. Von Manstein was the greatest German strategist.
toneloc223 2 years ago
Yes,but Guderian was supporting Manstein very much and in his memories he wrote,that manstein´s plan was great.
AlejjSi 2 years ago
thers a reason he never went back to his hometown kulmhof prussia was turned into a deathcamp, he admits his family had hard times at the hads of reichskommisar koch, it was somthing he must have carried personaly, seems to be the sort of man he was to carry his guilt personaly and accept it quietly, no need to trumpet evryone elses cries of damnation, he just wanted to represent the men who served under him honerably show that good and decent men existed in germany.
FryingpanOfD00M 2 years ago
I may not be proud of it but im related to him. It's still really interesting to be learning about him and that someone in my family has had a huge impact in history, even if it wasn' t a good one.
WumbaSkyler 2 years ago
I read Guderian's book. He was a skilled tactician, and knew how to conceptualize objectives unconventionally. This brought him to the attention of Hitler, and he was rapidly promoted. In spite of all these gifts, and his acknowledgement that he considered the Waffen SS his "Brothers," he claimed to have absolutely no knowledge of the activities of the SS Einsatsgruppen! He claimed this in his book, and would not elaborate on this ridiculous explanation of events any further. He's a liar!
hammeredwappered 2 years ago
I think Guderian had a sense of Prussian Honor and morality. And i think he knew exactly what the SS Einsatsgruppen was doing, and he had great difficulty with it. But, like Manstein, he would not disobey his Prussian obligation to military professionalism. Near the end, he openly quarreled with Hitler until the dictator had had enough, and sent him off in March 45 for health reasons. Guderian died with alot on his conscience. He knew he served an evil man, but served anyway.
hammeredwappered 2 years ago
You may also read,if you read well,that he had tu serve,at least since the war was began,because he knew,that everything but a victory will destroy Germany as he wrote in his memories. He knew well,aswell as Goerdeler and the other conspirators from July20th plot and aswell as Freisler,that Allies will not make anything other than a unconditional surrender,because of Roosevelt´s stupid "friendship" with Stalin(or at least Roosevelt believed in it).
AlejjSi 2 years ago
Churchill was just as big a proponent of Unconditional Surrender as any of the Big 3. Perhaps even more so in some cases. Shirer points out that these conspirators who believed that negotiations that resulted in anything less than unconditional surrender were "naive."
toneloc223 2 years ago
If you read the book,you may know,that he was against some Hitler´s opinions also when they were winning,such as the afair with Hitler sayiing "I belive Kriegsmarine,Luftwaffe but not Wehrmacht".Also the concept of invasion to Russia and Ardenn offensive in 44 was to guderian´s dislike.
AlejjSi 2 years ago
@hammeredwappered But there were other men who ignored and even openly defied orders that they knew to be wrong.Rommel refused to carry out executions of captured Jewish soldiers and commandos,von Brauchitsch tried to stop the Einsatsgruppen from opperating in his command area, and of course von Stauffenberg did a more than any other german dared do...
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
And to find out more about what happened in March 45(Hitler before wanted to send Guderian to reconvalescence,but Guderian said "No",because of the situation - but that is all in the book and it doesnt seem that you read it well-enough). You may also read Cornelius Ryan´s book "The Last Battle",where in memory of ColonelGeneral Gotthard Heinrici and his head of staff Colonel Eissman the interview between Hitler and Guderian(with Busse present) is showed much more dramatically
AlejjSi 2 years ago
Und würden wir morgen ohne die A-Bombe krieg führen, würdet ihr wieder & wieder eins auf den Arsch bekommen...KRIEG IST ABER SCHEISSE..erzählt dieses euren Führern..denn IHR seid am Zug
gummilippe 2 years ago
Hitler is an idiot
hes Ego always gets the better of that bastard
why the hell would you ever dismiss Guderian
Maybe they would have broken through in Stalingrad or Moscow
if they only Killed Hitler!
RazorCell7 2 years ago
guderian was one of the best general in the WW2...but the best of the best is only one- Walter Model!
Dimko77 2 years ago
Manstein would be another candidate for best General of the war though; his Plan to defeat France in 1940, his siege of Sevestopol, his Counter-attack during early 1943 were all impressive. Maybe you could criticise him for Kursk, though it is hard to see what the Germans could have done on the Eastern Front instead.
ColonelWright 2 years ago 2
@ ur last sentence: Retreat behind the Dnieper and thus last longer against the Russians.
quadcannon 2 years ago
Mansteins Sickle Cut plan came only into being after he consulted Guderian if it could be implemented. He himself hadn´t the knowledge of armoured warefare.
lucius1976 2 years ago
He was wrong about the strategy about how to deal with the D-Day landings (which he admitted after the war), but by then the war was lost for Germany.
I think Rommel was the tactical match for Guderian, but besides being right about how to deal with the D-Day landings, I believe Guderian was the better strategist. Rommel's neglecting to take Malta before advancing into Egypt, and talking about hitting the Soviets from the back door via the Middle East were certainly controversial ideas.
ColonelWright 2 years ago
These are always interesting debates. Personally I think Guderian is either the best, or atleast among the best Generals of World War 2. While he borrowed many of the Panzer ideas from the British, he certainly prophecized the future of warfare.
He was definitely one of the key Generals in the Battle of France; rightly pushing ahead boldly and not giving the French a chance to regroup, unlike the the more senior and conservative generals.
He was also right about Dunkirk, and Moscow.
ColonelWright 2 years ago
Guderiean and Rommel = My fav. Commandants
sdkfz162kingtiger 2 years ago 11
@sdkfz162kingtiger They are my favorite too
Ubaldo421 1 year ago
@sdkfz162kingtiger I'd choose Hoth, Manstein, or Mantueffel before Guderian, but I agree with Rommel deserving his place there
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
@panzertiger2000 its because of the tanks. i love this machines, and he (guderian) is a very important person in german tank tistory.
sdkfz162kingtiger 8 months ago
@sdkfz162kingtiger I do agree that he was important in the history of German Armor...just not as much as he makes himself out to be in his memoirs.He didn't take his own book Achtung Panzer to heart and in reality attacked combined arms warfare more than he supported it.
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
Another point
Guderian commanded a panzer corps (3 divisions 1st, 2nd, 10th) in 1940, Rommel commanded 1 division(7th). In 1941, Guderian's 2nd panzer group is consisted of 4 panzer div. and 2 inf. div, Rommel' Afrika Corps at its height has 2 paner div. and 1 light div. Guderian will be at his best commanding a panzer army, Rommel a panzer corps.
ultraflanker 2 years ago
Rommel overrated
Proves for Guderian better than Rommel:
Guderian has staff background worked as staff officer during WWI, took and finished staff courses, worked as chief of staff of high command in 1944. Rommel has no background formation in strategy.
Guderian has strong technical skills know every details about tanks, Rommel was infantry officer.
Guderian created german panzer force, so he is a better administrator in military affairs.
ultraflanker 2 years ago
@ultraflanker But those are the very reasons men admire Rommel, he was not some General Staff Officer in OKW.He was not sitting back in a cushy command post, he was on the front lines whenever he could be,a very visiable presence to his men.No matter how high up the ranks Guderian went his opinions would always be 2nd to Hitler's.Rommel's decisions were made on the ground, many thankfully countering OKWs orders and saving the lives of men on both sides.
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
i would add kesselring for defencive operations
advocated01 2 years ago
The NAZIS THE MOST POWERFUL KREATURES THAT HAVE WALK OUR PLANET POTENTIAL X TRUE EVOLUTION FIRE FIERCE PASSION POWER STAMINA DISCIPLINE TRUE WARRIORS KILLING MACHINES BRAVE BEAUTIFUL LOYAL TO DEATH TO THE MISSION FATHERLAND GERMANIA THE BLOOD FOR THE STAB OF WW1 RAISING THE FLAG TO THE END THAT IS NEVER AS LIFE PASSION POWER NEVER END NEVER TRUE GREATNESS 13/31 卐 HEIL HITLER 卐 ϟϟ 卐 卐 HEIL HITLER 卐 卍 ϟϟ 卐ϟϟ ϟϟ WAR HITLER 卐 RISE HITLER SPIRIT NOW VIKTORIA ϟϟ 卐
SCORPIONHALLOWEEN13 2 years ago
hahahahaha
georock123 2 years ago
You're a loony.
cecasander 2 years ago
@SCORPIONHALLOWEEN13
You are a nut.
NearAbbeyRoad 11 months ago
armenius25 2 years ago
Best general of the war. Read "Die Panzertruppen" superb work.
rhodri24 2 years ago 2
PS- Guderian is my personal favourite. Model and Manteuffel may have been more briliant- but Guderian's much loved personality among his men as "Schneller Heinz" (Hurry Up Heinz) and "buy me the ticket to the last station" win it for me.
Monty was lucky in Africa- German petrol shortages were the decisive factor- not leadership.
purbanegoro 3 years ago
Model?? his tactics/strategy leave much to be desired, Model was a feldmarschall more for his political reliability rather than his skill as a proffessional soldier. Model was more of a "yes man" to Hitler, Model was a good regimental staff seargent major,,at best!! In my opinion the best leaders would have to be Rommel , Manstein, "sepp" Dietrich and of course the father of blitzkrieg "Guderien"
dragonkilla7 3 years ago
"German Generals Talk (Paperback)" by B.H. Liddell Hart is an excllent work- where Wehrmacht generals discuss their perceptions. They state
Hitler was initially a brilliant strategist- opposed by orthodox Prussian vintage officers. But he refused any mobile defense- which would have successfully worn out the Red Army.
Though Hitler was 99% correct in the early days- this confidence in Hitler always being right, like him or not, was one of the major flaws of the Wehrmacht soldiers.
purbanegoro 3 years ago
Virtually all of the Generals interviewed felt they could have won the war if Hitler had allowed them a more flexible and independent strategy.
Hitler's' later irratlional (fueled by an amphetamine addiction) vehemently forbade any type of withdrawal on principle.
Fighting retreats and feints would have saved the Germans and defeated the 3 superpowers against them.
Readers be aware- Germans/Japanese are loved as colonial liberators outside the Anglosphere not everyone thinks them "evil".
purbanegoro 3 years ago 2
@purbanegoro
Most German generals said do not attack France and the UK combined. Hitker said attack.
Most German generals said do not attack the USSR. Hitker said attack.
Most knew they could never win the war. Hitler was gambling on quick swift victories. He had one - France. That sent him heady.
NearAbbeyRoad 11 months ago
@purbanegoro I don't think the Japanese were "loved" particuarly in China,ex:Rape of Nanjing.While Hitler bears the brunt of the wars loss,his generals had a hand in it too.Hindsight is 20/20 and these generals are no exception to the rule.Their valor and personal courage in battle should have been used against Hitler before July 20,1944 and not all of their strategic choices were sound.
panzertiger2000 8 months ago
«You cannot compare this guy with the greats like Major Winters of the Band of Brothers Easy Company.»
UTTER NONSENSE. Guderian and Manstein could sweep the floor with Eisenhower or Patton, and lets not even mention Rommel.
Germany was an average european nation, fighting a much larger enemy. Even so, without the full force of Soviet Union, it would have probably invaded the US, sooner or later.
ll500 3 years ago 21
what if statements and world war 2 are straw man positions. Germany attacked the USSR so they faced the full force of the communists with allied support. invading the usa ? pish posh
lextalionis2001 3 years ago
r u on drugs?
rhodri24 2 years ago
@ll500 Which would have been worse than invading the USSR. Because its seperated by a big freaking ocean. Germany couldnt even get air superiority over britain what the hell makes you think they would have even been able to launch an amphibious invasion that would have been 20 times greater than the normandy landings? Guiderian and Manstein were incredible leaders I will not argue this, but even thier genius could not overcome germanys limited resources.
IronManOfficialguy 1 year ago
@ll500
No way Germany with approx. 40 mill. (war time population) against US with circa 90 mill. Germany would never had stood any chance in the long run.
MrJoergenfoged 1 year ago
@MrJoergenfoged
Germany had around 60 million. The were doomed from the start,. The German economy was not up to it. The British Commonwealth and the USSR dwarfed Germany's economy. Add the USA and the war would be over quickly. It should have been over in 1944.
NearAbbeyRoad 11 months ago
@ll500 if not for us, soviet union would have fallen. no doubt about it! the us would have never been invaded by germany.you are misguided my friend.
mixerd0822 1 year ago
@ll500 I agree with your preamble, up until the part where you shit out the words, "they could whipe the floor with Patton and Eisenhower". That's just incipent thinking. Patton would have dominated Russians with his boldness.
NWFWMbudwieser 11 months ago
@ll500 wrote..
"Germany was an average european nation, fighting a much larger enemy. Even so, without the full force of Soviet Union, it would have probably invaded the US, sooner or later."
Such fantasy.
NearAbbeyRoad 11 months ago
@ll500 shut up chicken
emcedion 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You cannot compare this guy with the greats like Major Winters of the Band of Brothers Easy Company. The best generals of the war were men like Clark, Bradley and Ridgeway.
swanningaround 3 years ago
in north american propaganda they are the best, in reality rommel,guderian and others were far more skilled tacticians, american generals won easily most battles because USSR had alredy weaken the nazis a lot
GntypeX 3 years ago 2
all these generals had more casualties on western front than their german combatants - withal superiority.
ZenoWaxDisc 3 years ago
Great commander and brilliant military theorist.
ManilaSyndicate 3 years ago 2
combined arms...is that the question
jurgenmanfred 3 years ago
There is Achtung Panzer that was written in 1937, and then there is Panzer Leader that was witten after the war, mainly while Guderian was in jail.
papanzinga 3 years ago
Not surrounding the French &British and capturing them as POWs was the greatest mistake ever made in war. It wasn't necessary for Germany to prolong the war as this certainly did. Germany lost the war at Dunkirk.
nor888vast695 3 years ago
I wouldn't say that they lost the war because of that mistake (I think they made even greater mistakes in the east) but for sure, as von Manstein wrote in his book, the British wouldn't have been able to send forces to Africa if the Wehrmacht would have captured these forces in Dünkirchen
Tobias83ausmdorf 3 years ago
Comment removed
Barbraossa85 3 years ago
@nor888vast695
The Germans could not take Dunkirk. The rear guard was too strong. The British counter-attacked Army Group A with three divisions. Rommel thought he had been hit by five. Hitler stopped the advance. The Germans advanced beyond their dreams and were disorganized. Most of the BEF, and its equipment, had already left France by the time of Dunkirk. Many of the BEF were still around Brittany and left with their equipment. Only one third of the British army was ever in France.
NearAbbeyRoad 11 months ago
@nor888vast695
Germany lost the war on 1st September 1039. They could never win.
NearAbbeyRoad 11 months ago
Ha! Ha! Ha! At 2:20, the commentator speaks of the Guderian tank group but the movie shows the Kleist tank group. A big "K" is clearly visible on the back of one of the vehicles. How can you trust this kind of idiots?
ozczar 3 years ago