It was all Hitler's fault. A WWII Myths show

[@thomasknobbe4472]

If successful lawyering is essentially telling a more coherent and believable story than the other side, I think Mr. Buttar has once again won his case. And earned his drink. Thanks for reminding us how you do it!

[@pault1289]

Paul, these are great. Concise rebuttals of tropes that get run out in poorly researched books and TV documentaries. This was another excellent video and exactly the kind of content that marks your channel out. Thank you for arranging it and thanks to Prit for his time and enthusiasm. Paul

[@WW2TV]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@Daniel-du7pv]

I recommend the channel “zoomed historian” to get the real history of the ww2. We have so many lies nowadays

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@WW2TV How can you give me a heartfelt comment when I haven't posted my statement a minute before? You haven't had any time to read my text (which is critical of what was said), let alone evaluate it...

[@WW2TV]

I was online and read it immediately@@melchiorvonsternberg844

[@jefsantamonica641]

Prit was just fabulous! So succinct and on point!

[@garymiller_85]

Prit Buttar is one of my favourite speakers and historians. Absolutely marvelous.

[@meddy833]

All of Mr. Buttar's books on WW2 are a MUST READ. I cannot wait to start his WW1 Series of books next. Thanks for such a great knowledgeable guests.

[@kiwiruna9077]

They are really very good, I enjoyed them. To be fair, I could say that about all of Pritt's books.

[@troykauffman3963]

Woody, these myth shows are just absolutely fantastic. Great idea. Thank you to you and Prit.

[@WW2TV]

Glad you like them!

[@TheBurr75]

Paul you really have been spoiling us with all this content, plus it's been a great way of hearing guys like prit and searching out theyr'e previous sessions

[@WW2TV]

You're welcome

[@davidlavigne207]

What a charming fellow Prit Buttar is, and a fellow whiskey connoisseur as well. He certainly puts paid the myth that Hitler was the only German leader who made military blunders. I've always been an admirer of Guderian and Manstein based upon their memoirs, but now will have to reexamine my opinion of their veracity. I could spend an evening listening to Prit rattle on and be entertained as well as educated at the same time. This was a great idea Woody to have these short, but brilliant discussions. Thanks!

[@johndoe6298]

I'd be extremely weary of admiring Manstein. Not only was he deeply complicit in the crimes of the Wehrmacht (he was convicted of numerous charges after the war, his early release a product of Cold War pragmatism), but his memoir has been extensively challenged by historians. Plus, the title of his memoir is 'Lost Victories', a dubious title for someone who fought for the Nazis.

[@makinapacal]

@@johndoe6298 One of the most perverse aspects of much of the German General memoir literature is how they moan about how they didn't know and were not involved in the atrocities of the regime but then they whine about how Hitler's mistakes etc., prevented them from winning. In other words many deeply regretted NOT winning the war for Hitler. This should tell us all we need to know about just how Nazified these men actually were. Regarding Manstein I always found it funny that Manstein constantly whines in his memoirs about how hitler sabatoged his strategy. Yes if Hitler had allowed Manstein, (So Manstein claims.), to follow his strategy the war would have been prolonged - enough for Germany to be nuked!!

[@dennisweidner288]

Absolutely correct. I think one of the biggest myths is that the German generals opposed Barbarossa when in fact like Guederian they were champing at the bit.

[@poppyfields0675]

What a lovely man and engaging speaker. Could listen to him all day.

[@nickrails]

Really fantastic stuff, a fabulous presentation by Mr Buttar. The format is great - bite size in length but still very deep. The quality of guests is second to none....man this channel really deserves to blow up

[@wgowshipping]

My favorite was Prit getting his tea and whiskey delivered!

[@MrFluidwill]

A gentleman and a scholar. I'd like to point out many of Mr Buttar's books are incredibly well narated on audible, I have them on max repeat.

[@sevenonthelineproductionsl7524]

Alexandra Richie did a fantastic job demonstrating Guderian’s complicity in the German response to the Warsaw Uprising. He was an active participant deciding the fate of that city in the summer of 1944

[@fitzyirl]

I'm really enjoying this series of shorts. Prit Buttar is one of my favourite WW2 historians and his passion for the subject is evident in this video. Thanks Paul for hosting this illuminating video and series.

[@tonyjones1560]

I still have the copy of “Panzer Leader” that I bought and read back in high school…a while ago. Lately, my interest in WWII has somewhat rekindled. It’s great to hear these events expanded upon by quality channels like yours. Subscribed!

[@AbbyNormL]

Just found your channel and love it. I began studying WWII back in the 1970s and have read thousands of books over the past 50 years. Throughout that time, the history of WWII as went through many revisions, especially following the fall of the USSR and the limited opening of their archives. It is hard to determine what is myth, Cold War fiction and actual fact. Coincidentally, I just finished reading Guderian’s “Panzer Leader” and Kenneth Macksey’s “Panzer General: Heinz Guderian and the Blitzkrieg Victories of WWII” a few weeks ago. I agree with the guest that Guderian wanted complete control of the Panzer forces to the extent he wanted it to be a separate branch of service, equal to the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe. He didn’t want anyone, especially the Artillery, to play with his toys. My take on Guderian’s actions relating to the July 20 plot is that he was playing both sides. He dances around the subject quite well in his Memoirs. He obviously had foreknowledge of the attempt, but chose to sit it out and jump on the winning bandwagon. All of the German leadership using the “loyalty oath” excuse as to why they continued to obey Hitler is BS. They all had been receiving huge bribes in money and lands for years. Hitler had given Guderian all of his family’s former properties that had been lost when Poland was created at the end of WWI. Guderian’s wife remained there until the Russians were knocking on the door. Soon after, Guderian, like Kesselring, Yodl, Keitel, Goering, Speer, Donitz and a host of other German military and political leaders, ran to surrender to the American to avoid the warm reception they could expect if in the hands of the Soviets. After the war, Guderian bragged that he could stand up to Hitler and on occasionally Hitler would back down and follow his recommendations. Of course, all of the failures he subsequently encountered were on those times Hitler failed to heed his instruction.

[@WW2TV]

Welcome aboard

[@makinapacal]

I too read Guderian's Panzer Leader or more accurately Panzer Liar. It is now an amusing read given the amount of lies, fabrications, distortions and omissions in it. Manstein's Lost Victories, more accurately Lost Integrity, is if anything even more full of lies, omissions and nonsense. The Entire German General memoir literature from the Second World War is bluntly full of BS and should be taken with a ton of salt.

[@JerryEricsson]

Great video, I love history, always have. Dad, who lived through both world wars was very interested, he read about the war, the weapons and the generals all his life. He had the Ballentine collection of books which were great reads in themselves. Wish I had those now to re-read, he often passed them to me to read when he was finished. I made him proud when I enlisted in the US Army in 1970 and flew off to Vietnam for my one year tour.

[@Tolkiene]

Great presentation. Another good example is the much misunderstood Dunkirk Halt Order. Popular history says it was given by Hitler to 'spare the British'. But...the order came from Rundstedt, the army group commander in the field. Brauchitsch, supreme commander of the Heer, disagreed, but Hitler confirmed Rundstedt's order after getting a briefing from him. The terrain was viewed as unfavourable for tanks and it was believed the mechanised troops needed a pause before moving to operations in the south. Naturally Göring seized the chance to get some glory by bragging about how his Luftwaffe could finish off the beleaguered allied troops at Dunkirk. So, in summation, two of Hitler's generals disagreed, he chose to follow the advice of a well-respected commander and gave him a free hand and a third general officer, who also happened to be Hitler's heir, made bombastic promises to get the glory. After the Dunkirk escape, Hitler claimed it had been 'part of the plan' because 'the loss of the invasion corps would mean the end of the British Empire and Germany couldn't and didn't want to inherit'. This was a post-facto rationalisation meant to preserve the illusion of the Führer's aura of 'infallibility'. The myth was happily perpetuated by Heer generals after the war because they wanted to shift all the blame for the loss of the war to him and present themselves as 'geniuses' whose 'sage advice' had been ignored all the time.

[@johnsowerby7182]

Excellent chat, and an engaging speaker.... I certainly need to find somebof his books

[@georgecooksey8216]

Great presentation and discussion. Thank you gentlemen.

[@dbassman27]

With respect to logistics and the Wehrnacht; when Operation Barbarossa was being planned, the officers doing the staff work told the planners that after the initial advance (to about Smolensk), everything would have to stop while supplies and replacements etc were brought forward. Army Group Centre did stop in August, and didn't start moving again until the end of September. From that point forward, the Germans lacked the ability to properly supply their armies. They had winter clothing; but they couldn't supply food, ammunition and clothing at the same time. Not enough space. Not to mention the vast amount of space the forage for their horses required.

[@AlexMarciniszyn-y1k]

Seriously? Supply by air did occur. The Ju 52 brought supplies in and took the badly wounded out. Farms were looted for supplies as well. The German soldier was trained to live off the land as well.

[@dbassman27]

Living off the land is pretty difficult when it is 30 or 40 below zero. Plus if you are living off the land, what are people who are already there supposed to eat? The only time air supply was successful was at the Demyansk pocket. Didn't work to well at Stalingrad (or Tunisia). @@AlexMarciniszyn-y1k

[@gerryhromowyk83]

I really do love this format, short and sweet. But I also do like the longer 1 hour shows

[@seegurke93]

great show. Waiting for pt 2 :D

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Another excellent one. Very passionately argued, and Prit's whisky recommendation is good to know. Its been argued that if not for Hitlers instance on defending as the Soviets counter attacked from Moscow on late 1941 many senior German generals would have wanted to withdraw from the USSR completely in early 1942 so Hitler 'saved' the German presence in the USSR. Mind you the alternative might have been better for Germany, so my point is actually a bit pointless 😂.

[@Waterflux]

Another great WW2TV interview with Dr. Buttar! ⭐🌟⭐🌟 Nice to see mythbusting Guderian and Manstein. Unfortunately, Western historiography readily got "suckered" in by surviving post-WW2 ex-German generals. Needless to say, it was not until the fall of the Berlin wall and the opening of Soviet archives (with several key exceptions). In other words, ex-generals like Guderian and Manstein had more than a plenty of time building up their own fanbases. (Do names like Liddell Hart, Trevor DuPuy sound somewhat uncomfortably familiar? Hmmm ...) I think their "tenure" in the Western historical community might have distracted NATO military thinkers during the greater part of the Cold War which manifested into idealizing a "Blitzkrieg"-style way of war. (Spoiler alert: the Korean War. Both sides "blitzed each other" within the first nine month of the war, first to the south, second to the north, then back to the south by the spring of 1951. Thereafter, it transformed into battles for trenches and hilltops. One of the major downside of the maneuver warfare is that it is not sustainable. Attrition takes over soon or later.) As for Manstein: I am curious to see if Manstein has stumbled upon Paulus in the afterlife. I am fairly confident that Manstein is going to have to do a lot of explanations to Paulus. Enjoy the afterlife version of office politics, Erich.

[@brunozeigerts6379]

A friend of mine always had a favourite story... that the Me262 could have been ready by 1942... if Hitler hadn't insisted on turning it into a bomber. However, most sources I'd read state that he didn't see the first prototype, sans jet engines... until 1943. Even then, efforts to turn it into a bomber only delayed the introduction by about a month.(according to Strategy for Defeat: Hitler's Luftwaffe)

[@nigeh5326]

As soon as Prit started I knew he would say Fast Heinz Guderian 😊. Even at Wolverhampton Uni in the nineties we were all aware of Guderian’s self promotion, stealing of ideas and blaming of others, especially AH.

[@davidhoward4715]

He was also guilty of war crimes.

[@nigeh5326]

@@davidhoward4715 almost all of them were but most got away with it 😔

[@ryanparker4996]

​@@davidhoward4715you should see what the Red Army did

[@ryanparker4996]

​@@nigeh5326nothing compared to what the Reds got away with. Ever heard of the Rape of Berlin?

[@scarletharlot69]

Awesome channel by the way. In history as in life I believe in keeping it real, looking at it objectively. Keep it up dudes!

[@philbosworth3789]

Pritt, come bace and do this in depth please.

[@johndoe6298]

The left-hand image at 16:30 isn't Erich von Manstein. That's Alfred Jodl, Chief of Operations Staff who was hanged at Nuremberg.

[@WW2TV]

Yep, I was hoping to get to Jodl later but we ran out of time

[@TheHistoryUnderground]

Brilliant episode. I’m reading Pritt Buttar’s book “Meat Grinder” now.

[@davidpitchford6510]

Great guest in a great series. Thank you both, Gentlemen

[@ultrablue2]

You have to admit having the political leader of a country involved in armed conflict involving himself in the technical minutia of the military helps no one but the enemy. To have an outsider make decisions about the thickness of tank armor and what sort of rifles and calibers the infantry needs is the definition of micromanagement.

[@tylerrobbins8311]

Did you factor Hitler was a decorated veteran of WWI? It's not that has veiwes or ideals were bad just not particularly innovative to they way times where changing. Hitler was the one who heavily favored the STG 44 aka the first implimented "assault rifle". The biggest factors was that it was overly convoluted in logistics for the Germans.

[@steveg3981]

Prit is always good value. Thanks. Balblair 25 year old single malt is $1500 per bottle. Fifteen year old is only $150.75, a bargain. Both are presently sold out as at July 27 2024.

[@EnigmaCodeCrusher]

This is where I would have liked to have known some more about what they did in the post-war era. Even though I know this channel is focused only on WW2.

[@stevej8005]

Great show from Prit. I think in one of your earlier shows it was mentioned that Rommel did not have a great grasp of logistics either - seems like a significant failing of a number of frontline German generals.

[@Daniel-du7pv]

I recommend the channel “zoomed historian” to get the real history of the ww2. We have so many lies nowadays

[@WW2TV]

Are you suggesting WW2TV does not offer "real" history?

[@pshehan1]

Excellent presentation and I hate to nitpick but the photograph displayed during the discussion of Manstein is of Alfred Jodl.

[@WW2TV]

Yes, we were hoping to get to Jodl and ran out of time

[@pshehan1]

@@WW2TV Yes, I noticed Jodl got a mention right at the end.

[@scottgrimwood8868]

Not only excellent myth busting but a whiskey recommendation, no where else on KZbin can you get that!

[@InssiAjaton]

Logistics! You can see that in Patton’s memories or complaints about the hiatus of the third army. There is a number of stories about the Soviet (Ukrainian) division’s failures in their task to cut Finland in half at the narrowest point during the 1939 - 1940 Winter War, as well as the German push towards Leningrad and especially Moscow. I particularly remember the description of twin failures by the German Mountain Division. It came from Norway to Northern Finland, with a task to cut the Murmansk railroad that was an important way for western aid to reach the Soviet armies. Wolf H. Halsti describes their lack of winter clothing and other supplies. When he tried to give advice, he got an answer: “A German soldier does not suffer from cold.” The next failure was not preparing for the month or two, when the hard, frozen soil (perfect for heavy items move) melted and made any further materiel deliveries impossible, even with tracked vehicles. Then, it appears to me that Hitler’s reason to what is called “The Bulge” was to cut the allies’ supply route. In this issue, I believed he at last had more realistic understanding what was important. Of course, Germany at that time had no resources to accomplish that. Logistics here, logistics there…

[@bladimirantoniorosasgonzal6478]

Great video

[@Tolkiene]

In regards to Manstein, he provided Ohlendorf's Einsatzgruppe D with fuel, drivers, vehicles etc. while they were committing massacres on Crimea. His troops also set up security cordons to prevent Jews from fleeing the execution sites. Afterwards Manstein sent a complaint to Ohlendorf...not because he'd had an epiphany and decided mass murder of civilians was wrong, but because he believed his soldiers were entitled to the wristwatches of the murdered Jews. His disagreements with Hitler were solely about military matters and because he felt that his 'genius' was not being sufficiently recognised (didn't get appointed Oberost).

[@Tolkiene]

@@vincentdow5899 I agree completely. Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies talk about it in 'The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture', which discusses the Clean Wehrmacht myth. Robert Forczyk also mentions it in 'Where the Iron Crosses Grow: The Crimea 1941-44'. Andreij Angrick discusses the relationship between Manstein and Ohlendorf in 'Besatzungspolitik und Massenmord. Die Einsatzgruppe D in der südlichen Sowjetunion 1941-1943', which is a monography about the activities of Einsatzgruppe D (both during and after Ohlendorf's tenure as their commander) in Ukraine and the Caucasus, their role in genocide and cooperation with the Wehrmacht as well as the Romanian army. It is worth noting that Manstein passed his own order exhorting German soldiers to 'destroy the Jewish-Bolshevik system', which equated Bolshevism with Jews and blamed the Jews for Germany's ills (so basically stab in the back myth, there's no difference between said order and Reichenau's infamous Severity Order). Like Reichenau, he was an anti-Semite and supported the war of annihilation. Alas, as far as I know, Angrick's book is only available in German, which is a shame since it's incredibly comprehensive, though he's written an English language monography about the Holocaust in the Baltics. Post-war, Manstein lied about the nature of his working relationship with Ohlendorf and claimed to have never met him. Jennifer B Capani talks about that in her PhD dissertation An 'Alter Kampfer' at the Forefront of the Holocaust: Otto Ohlendorf Between Careerism and Nazi Fundamentalism (you can find that online on academia.edu. You just need to create a free account).

[@robertmatch6550]

Reminds me a little of the Goon Show episode: "Tails of Mens Shirts" where at the outbreak of war, all the political and military leaders immediately get started on writing their memoirs.

[@mikebellis5713]

Didn't Germany make peace overtures to Churchill many times, starting from the onset of WW2, which were turned down in favour of unconditional surrender? Imagine how many lives would have been saved

[@WW2TV]

Sort of, but the terms of any such deal would have screwed most of Europe and the east

[@Wo1fLarsen]

This is excellent.

[@johncarey6053]

Slowly catching up and another fantastic myth busting session. 👍

[@liamhickey359]

Love this Wish it was long form though.

[@johnsowerby7182]

A talk on The Camarilla surrounding Hitler would be excellent.

[@bradleynorton3365]

Thanks!

[@martindice5424]

Gotta love a bit of Prit! Brilliant stuff 👍👍

[@canuck_gamer3359]

As with most discussions where there are two differing opinions, I think there is a little bit of room in the middle of the two positions. I don't think any historian could possibly argue that Hitler's amateurism and changes of mind didn't affect the Eastern front. Absolutely, it's important to closely examine points made in a memoire, which sole purpose is to paint the subject in the best possible light. But after studying the war for 30 years, I can confidently say that I think we should all be grateful that Hitler was running the show. A German army in control of most of Europe and run by professional people only presents a much tougher test. I believe quite certainly that they still lose the war but it could have been much, much worse for our side. Hitler was a buffoon and the only differences between his early successes and his eventual defeat was his luck ran out and he faced determined, organized resistance.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

It had little to do with "bafoons" on any side, but whether a war was going to be a "short war scenario" (a few months, a year at most) or a "long war scenario" (several years). A "short war scenario" favored the inner powers with the advantage of "surprize" overpowering in one direction, whilst a "long war scenario" favored the outside powers with the resources and the option of fighting multiple front wars due to a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE...

[@ianwalter62]

Another excellent presentation by Mr Buttar. Did someone in the comments suggest he is Mr Buttar of Counsel? That would explain his ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. Many years ago I read those memoirs... when I was infinitely younger ... and I remember Guderian's comments about getting a supply train into Tula in about ?? late November 1941, unloading the ammo, and sending it back to Germany, loaded with shoes. From the shoe factory in Tula. Winter shoes, were they?

[@MeddyMeddybemps]

Another great video with another great author. Thank you sir!

[@tonet890]

I echo the sentiments here about this myths series. The amount of shallow research and echoing opinions from previously published sources is regretably prevalent. The amount of sheer ignorance that commenters have on other online sites is approaching appaling levels. Busting myths is a compelling and fun way of campaigning for more accuracy and care on WW2 history. Please keep this series going, and attack more of the careless D-Day misconceptions, especially.

[@AlexMarciniszyn-y1k]

I agree. Old, popular stories get repeated by people who do little or no research. Being online is like sitting in a pub with people who just repeat what little knowledge or stories they've heard. It's shallow and repetitive. Regarding the "wonder weapons," it's fortunate that the Allies avoided the brunt of them. Declassified reports show that rockets beyond the V-2 had been built. Nerve gas was discovered in artillery shells that were headed for the front by British bomb disposal personnel.

[@Seltzer_Water_Lover]

Brendan Simms: Hitler A Global Biography does a great job going through Hitler's decision making on the battlefield, and dispelling myths about fault and blame

[@robertleache3450]

Mr. Prit: in defense of Guderian, he was one of the few German Generals who recognized Hitler's strengths as well as his weaknesses. Indeed, he even pitied the man for his isolation. You can read that in the back of his book; "Panzer Leader". Manstein, in his memoirs re Hitler, No-not in the same vein- he tends to blame Hitler. So, in Guderian's case re Hitler, it may be more nuanced then you are suggesting. Yes he and Hitler had some ugly arguments-particularly the last time Guderian saw Hitler in January 1945; but Guderian could still give Hitler credit where, Guderian felt where it was due. And, this was after the war, when many if not most German Generals, i.e., the "Manstein Crowd" blamed Hitler alone for the German defeat.

[@ToddSauve]

Alas, here we were dispelling the myth that the British always stopped for tea a few days ago, and what does Prit do? He has his wife bring him a cup of tea! Ha, ha! What can you do? 🤷‍♂

[@dennisweidner288]

This is a very important topic. Thank you for raising it. Right off the bat, however, there is a serious problem. Prit describes a Russian/Soviet narrative and a Western narrative. Now this is accurate right after the War and well into the post-War era. And it accurately describes the modern Russian view today. But unlike Russia frozen in time, scholarship in the West has moved on. And you will not find many Western historians adhering to that view. In fact many woke-influenced Western historians (who now dominate Western historiography) will espouse the 'Russian view' not wanting to give America and Britain any credit for the Allied victory. Actual military historians take a much more nuanced view, but even many of them do not fully understand the importance of the War in the West. Paul you WW2 Channel presents all kinds of scholars and surely you understand that they do they do not present what Piers calls "the Western view".

[@caryblack5985]

Prit quote that an autobiography is the story of a hero by one who knew him best is from Ambrose Bierce The Devil's Dictionary. Another point is that they wargamed the Soviet invasion and knew that ther would be problems in logistics after a 300 kilometer advance and the general who pointed this out was Paulus Finally both Hitler and Halder thought they would conquer the USSR in 4 to 8 weeks and that was because the Soviets would collapse. This would mean the invasion would be over by September1 well before of winter. We know how that worked out.

[@glenchapman3899]

Hitler was enormously let down by his intelligence network as well. Based on the information they had, Hitler's timetable was pretty accurate. The fact that they underestimated Soviet forces by about 100% was really telling.

[@caryblack5985]

@@glenchapman3899 Underestimated by about 500%. Also they expected the Soviets to collapse. They did not even after taking casualties about as large as the Gernan forces.

[@brucetucker4847]

@@caryblack5985 That is always the hardest thing to calculate in warfare. When is a war over? When one side decides it has been beaten. What will it take to do that? Always very difficult to gauge. It's the same thing that did in the Japanese in WW2 and the Confederates in the ACW - they both underestimated the resolve of their enemy to absorb heavy losses and still fight. They didn't think the other side would think it was worth the cost. And sometimes the calculation goes the other way. America won its independence (with the help of France) because the British decided it wasn't worth the cost to go on fighting. The British had suffered several severe setbacks but they were not by any means unable to continue the war in 1781 (and in fact they did continue it in every other theater and won back everything they had lost to the French and then some). Likewise the North Vietnamese won their bid to unify the country under their rule because the Americans decided that continuing the war wasn't worth the cost.

[@caryblack5985]

@@brucetucker4847 The best comparison is WWI when Hindenberg and Ludendorf decided to capitulate when they saw the the chance of winning was gone., Hitler swore there would never be a capitulation and so he dragged the German people down with him. The German deaths skyrocketed in 1945 and the destruction of cities was immense . The greatest loss of old men and boys and German troops happened because Hitler was traumatized because the Germans gave up before the last minute.

[@glenchapman3899]

@@caryblack5985 Eventually yes, but the original OKW estimates were off by something like 135 divisions lol. As for the collapse, I read an interview with an ex Soviet tanker about why the Soviet Union did not collapse. He said. "We had a choice between two dictators. One spoke Russian, the other did not" lol

[@JRTurgeon13]

About Guderian's retreat before Moscow. Guderian's immediate boss was von Kluge (when it a was a Panzer Group, not a Panzer Army) and they didn't get along. Von Kluge was willing to comply blindly with Hitler's order not to step back an inch. Guderian would regularly go over von Kluge's head to Fedor von Bock (commander of Army Group Center). One explanation would be that Guderian retreated with von Bock's permission while the other units obeyed the orders to stand their ground given by von Kluge. For the rest, I agree that he was close to the regime and got off lightly.

[@waynes.3380]

Just brilliant work, keep them coming Woody 👍

[@RT-far-T]

It's essential to see the video from Citino about this.

[@richardmack4905]

I have read all of his books on the Eastern Front. His work is outstanding!

[@Cba409]

The same people saying men are women are the same people teaching you history.

[@WW2TV]

Sex is biological, gender is a social construct and like history is complicated

[@Cba409]

@@WW2TV thanks for proving my point.

[@WW2TV]

I didn't see a point. Just a comment by someone showing their ignorance@@Cba409

[@Cba409]

@@WW2TV no amount of evidence will ever persuade a leftist. Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

[@WW2TV]

Nice talking to you

[@morganophelia5963]

my mother's maiden name is heinz my grandpa's full name was Christian Martin Luther Heinz that side of my family was Lutheran's

[@velvetcroc9827]

The dictator supposedly admitted to von Manstein that the defeat at Stalingrad was his responsibility, and indeed in one sense it was: not only had he let von Reichenau talk him into giving the waffling Paulus command of the 6th Army, but in fall 1942, he had reduced the striking power of his armies in the east by shifting key units to the west in response to potential threats there. In so doing he had crippled the Wehrmacht in three different but vital areas: the SS super-unit he had sent to France (the Leibstandarte) was easily the equal of the Großdeutschland. Its presence on the Eastern Front would have vastly increased the hitting power of the combat units there. Given how close von Manstein got to Stalingrad, even with the cobbled-together forces available, the notion that if he had additional units he would have broken through is hardly speculative. Much of the success of those units was based on the careful integration of tanks with infantry and tactical aircraft. The dictator had subtracted both of those components as well. The successes of Army Group Don in those four critical months (December 1942-March 1943) are truly astonishing.

[@stewartmckenna3013]

These are good! Keep going!

[@patttrick]

Superb.

[@WW2TV]

Thanks a lot

[@douglashoover6473]

Superb discussion.

[@dumptrump3788]

WW2 was essentially unwinnable for Germany. Their industrial base & military organization was capable of winning only short wars that relied on sudden, overwhelming force, with large amounts of fear & intimidation to encourage collapse in enemy moral. It worked in Poland, France, Netherlands, Belgium etc, but when they ran up against a foe that didn't back down & could absorb losses the shortcomings were soon revealed. This is why Germany ended up moving toward "Wonder Weapons" & the Allies churned out increasingly vast amounts of continually developed & improved standard weapons. What we have with the "Oh, but the Germans were the best, if only they'd had earlier then WW2 might have turned out very different" is simply the never ending effect of German propaganda, which was probably the only thing that they were truly masters of above & beyond anyone else. Anyone who hasn't done their research thinks of German forces riding tanks, trucks & Hanomags, while the truth was that they were reliant on a lot of horse drawn transport.

[@AlexMarciniszyn-y1k]

Nonsense. Why were British sailors braving Arctic waters to bring supplies to the Russians? Why were the Americans producing tanks and aircraft for them? Why was the Lend-Lease program created? Britain and Russia were in trouble. Better to supply them instead of bringing U.S. troops in, but that did happen in the middle of 1944. What happened near the end of World War 1? Again, American troops appeared.

[@IloveEaster]

Blitzkrieg was a war winning method,but 2 things,one it doesn’t go well if the other side has equal or better air power,and once the blitzkrieg genie was out of the bottle there was no putting it back in.

[@markfrumkin3230]

Thank you, this was brilliant!

[@dbassman27]

He may not have been directly responsible, but since he was in charge, he was ultimately responsible. However, the Germans also lost the First World War, and the military during that time was far more in control of their own matters than it was in the Second World War. So the myth of German military competence is something that needs to be examined.

[@Mercurywheeler]

But in ww1 they didn't lose in the field. They were starved economically, even managed to actually beat Russia. So it shows the army WAS competent, unlike Hitler.

[@21mozzie]

Everyone blaming Hitler reminds me of a story in Robert Masons Chickenhawk, where a Huey crashes in Vietnam, and they wrote of 20 tonnes of equipment on that was on board.

[@RayyMusik]

Guderian was right about the StuGs. They were nearly exclusively used as tank destroyers after Barbarossa and even replaced the Pz. IV in many Panzerabteilungen (battalions) in 1944/45. It made absolutely no sense to leave them assigned to the artillery.

[@neilritson7445]

Wonderful introduction! Can we also wonder why the British press in particular denigrated Hitler and yet honours these BBBBBBs generals such as Rommel - see my comments on that Myth. My farmer friend only yesterday told me Guderian was a tank warfare master! I asked him where on earth he acquired that opinion [as we are in NZ]. He thought it 'might have been from a magazine'. Churchill promulgated the Rommel myth - why?

[@edvineyard1143]

I have all of Prit's books, great stuff.

[@buonafortuna8928]

Paul brilliant. Loving the shorts.

[@mikemasters11]

Good friend refers to folks who idolize WW2 German commanders as "Nazi worshippers." Amazing how our view of war affected by who wrote memoirs and who didn't. This is a recurring theme in this series.

[@georgesouthwick7000]

In the military, if you are in charge and it happens on your watch, it is your fault, period.

[@johnlucas8479]

very interesting presentation

[@philvanderlaan5942]

I like Oban myself, and it’s not something I can afford all the time.

[@aon10003]

Its interesting. I made a similar list and came up with Guderian, Halder and Göring as the worst Generals. The best. Hans von Seekt. He created the German way of war. Its easy to win of you bring a gun to a knife fight.

[@peromalmstrom7668]

The survivor, not just the winner, always writes History with a twist. Any credible Historian, should be able to look above and beyond self serving, self publicising, historical analysing individuals. Remember, majority of heroes or villains, depending on the side viewed from, end-up dead. the heroes still alive, mostly live in a quiet, cut-off world with a mantra of always being silently proud, making Historians sources of information, often coming from the least reliable, sometimes, least desirable survivors. Human nature, means every human makes mistakes, yet very, very few, would ever openly and publicly admit in full honesty and truth to their mistakes, as this would mean it is always to their own detriment. That is just not reality of human nature. With regards logistics, very few war practitioners or even arguably Historians, cover logistics in memoirs or analysis, as it is just not sexy. Yet, arguably, it is the most important element when deploying or defending a force of arms. Even today, as Ukraine is showing, who has the money, the largest manufacturing capability (or friends/allies that do) and best logistics, tend to win as evidenced by History.

[@justinmcclain4663]

Nice

[@JevansUK]

Giving men like Halder the responsibility of the German official history for the American records was a terrible idea, the access to all records including of those that incriminate the wehrmact of war crimes.

[@Richard-g4u1r]

"It's all Hitler's fault" is my go-to defense.

[@markaxworthy2508]

Yes, "The one month delay had been built into the German timetable even before Barbarossa began. They had every intention of having a logistic pause so that the troops could regroup." (06:11). However, the question is whether pursuing the Kiev campaign provided this, given that it itself involved significant logistic expenditure and drew troops out of position. Did it?

[@brunozeigerts6379]

I'd read that the American approach to war was to put the best soldiers in the rear, and the less able ones in the front. The German approach was to put the best troops in the front lines...and the lesser soldiers in the rear... and let the logistics sort themselves out. The British apparently were somewhere in the middle.

[@frankydaulman2291]

Meticulously done Sir

[@polishadamtv]

By the numbers didn't the Soviets wipe out like 75-80% of all German Forces if that's true, U.S and it's allies including UK without the Soviets you wouldn't beat Jack

[@WW2TV]

Yes that's true in terms of fighting men, but the US and Western Allies were making a massive difference via strategic bombing and in the Battle of the Atlantic to name but two

[@jaywhite38]

Nazi ideology may have been largely attributed to Hitler, but he was by no means alone, and I'm not talking exclusively about generals or the military

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

One notes that there is always a disconnect between the Head of State and the generals on war plans and one shouldn't always side with the generals; particularly when one takes into account the greater responsibility the Head of State in seeing the big picture. I am not talking about Hitler in particular either. Heads of State have to maintain the big picture that encompasses military mattes but also economic and domestic policy. Few Heads of State in the past 250 years have both personally controlled military operations and running a nation at the same time as Hitler did. While he cannot be compared to accomplished generals who were also heads of state like Napoleon, Carl Johan and Frederick the Great, Hitler did have the same types of disagreements with generals who did not see the big picture. Both Napoleon and Carl Johan often had to overrule their generals who simply didn't or wouldn't see the larger policy picture beyond the military. In the 1813 Leipzig Campaign Carl Johan had to rein in his generals who wanted to prove the Swedish army's effectiveness in ancillary battles, and by advancing to take Hamburg for reasons of prestige rather than the strategic, and bristled at his caution. At a dinner when complaints were aired Carl Johan reminded them that they could not replace heavy losses due to the state of the Swedish economy's recent recovery, that they had a whole other campaign with Denmark to fight after Napoleon was defeated, that they could not count on their allies who were scheming behind their backs with Denmark using diplomatic channels, and that warfare was not a promenade but an extension of national policy rather than their honor. In sum, that they weren't seeing the whole picture. In particular with Hitler, after recently reading von Rundstedt's bio, along with Rommel's and Manstein's, is the relative refusal to understand the economic components of warfare that Hitler had to heed and this is a dominant theme in the planning of Barbarossa and beyond. The 1942 Summer Offensive in Russia is a prime example. Hitler had very legitimate economic reasons behind the operation, as well as domestic ones, that it seems the generals simply refused to accept. So while Manstein and others are apt to blame Hitler for a flawed premise behind Case Blue, one also notes that they are dismissing the dire economic reasons behind the need to take oil producing areas, as well as the possibility of using valuable economic territories as bargaining chips for better peace terms. Von Rundstedt in particular simply disagreed with Hitler that economic concerns were important enough to shape operations around. This is a theme that repeats itself more than once.

[@glenchapman3899]

Thats exactly right. FDR spent a good chunk of WW2 refereeing his own military leaders over the best way to conduct the war, and that is with virtually an unlimited economy, means of production and logistics to match. Churchill was constantly needing to reign in his generals because of manpower issues, especially after D Day.

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

@@glenchapman3899 100%!

[@davidnemoseck9007]

Glad to see more people getting it was more then just Hitler. Many people had to cooperate with him for him to do what he did, and that they all were to blame for what happened to the German army.

[@promnightdumpsterbaby9553]

The Ardennes offensive in 44 ,on paper,is something I'd have attempted. It wasn't a stupid plan. Had they more time and the weather had held,it may have worked.

[@mirkojorgovic]

Hitler did something tactical good advices for Heer: he supported Guderian's wishes about panzer3 50mmL60, Daimler-Benz t34, Panther2 ( Tiger 2 suspension, better final drive,still lighter than Tiger1) and many of them postponed or didn't realized. He also supported Manstein 1940-43; But in politic's global strategy, Hitler was foolish fatal amateur and he was main cause of Germany 's total defeat .

[@KestrelOwens]

Thinking about the Americans and British officers who were much more trained in logistics than the Germans. Most of the experience of American and British forces were expeditionary wars across oceans (or at least in minimally inhabited places), where Germany did not have that having fought mostly continental wars in comparably densely populated areas. Thus the necessity to focus on logistics by Americans and British.

[@provjaro]

Another enjoyable video

[@SmilingIbis]

Find out who gave orders to not withdraw from untenable positions and blame it on him.

[@Go_for_it652]

The design of the Blitzkrieg was presented and convinced Hitler it would work . Many disagreed with the concept and in the final analysis were correct .

[@Outlier999]

Let's just agree that Adolf wasn't the military genius he thought he was. Neither were Mussolini, Tojo, Churchill, or Stalin. Only Roosevelt was smart enough and honest enough to admit he didn't know crap. He let Marshall and Eisenhower do it.