Best General of WW2?

[Nikitns]

Originally Posted by FM_Von_Manstein

3. Stopped the Soviet Winter Offensive of 1943 dead in it's tracks by smashing the Popov group, destroying 50 enemy divisions.

Which means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because each Soviet division was understrength in the extreme during that time. 1000-2000 men per division.

Also destroying =! killing/capturing all soldiers in that division.

[FM_Von_Manstein]

Originally Posted by Nikitns

Which means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because each Soviet division was understrength in the extreme during that time. 1000-2000 men per division.

Also destroying =! killing/capturing all soldiers in that division.

Well if it hadn't been stopped Germany would have lost much much sooner. It means something kid.

In just 4 years he was directly responsible for the death of ~23 million people (most of them Soviets), and many, many more indirect deaths.

The deaths of soviets sounds pretty good to me. I'm pretty sure the tens millions of people that suffered under Soviet occupation and communist rule would agree with that statement.

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by FM_Von_Manstein

The desire to conquer another country has nothing to do with Nazism. Obviously Manstein knew that many Russians would die in the process of the war. But that's what war is. Manstein or most German generals for the matter did not endorse genocide or racism. Rommel would have shot any soldier who displayed such ideals. Many German generals had a great deal of respect for Hitler, he saved their country, that's just human nature. Being professional soldiers they would like to see their country succeed in warfare, and obviously had a great deal of devotion to their country. But they were not devoted to Nazi causes. They did not believe in extermination, and as the war dragged on they knew that Hitler was destroying the country they loved. They knew that their service to their country meant nothing because it was being run by a mad man. But they carried on because they wanted to defend their people.

Youre missing the point. I will repeat it again. I suggest you go and read dossiers, field orders and personal entries of those Generals. As well Manstein. Then we can contiune on the subject. You seem to have a twisted view on the German military of WW2. I am not comparing the German OKH and its leaders to the Nazi party. But they have been more then just soldiers and many of those Generals did not only just accepted war crimes but also enganged with their troops in it some more others less it is NOT a simple black vs white scenario that for sure and to paint a acurate picture about everything is very hard maybe even impossible (we will knever know all details). But Germany spend the last 60 years working that history up. And I think if anyone has a good view about it then it are the German historians. And they spend a lot of time and effort in understanding characters like either Rommel or Manstein, Kluge, Witzleben, Tresckow etc. you name it. So believe it or not. There cant be a doubt that Manstein was part of all the war effords and played his role. How big that was and how much responsible he was as individual is up to historians to discuss. For sure there is a lot of conversity and yet not solved historical events ~ for example how close was Manstein to the Nazi doctrine really ?. But there cant be a doubt that he was more then just only a soldier and usual character by its time.

Also, "the others did it as well" rhetoric is =/= excuse. It is very unprofessional to argue that way regarding history and no serious historian would do that so we as usual people should not either. It shows a lack of fundamental understanding regarding WW2 and its causes. Its the same stupid rhetoric like comparing war crimes with each other for example which is a disgrace to the dead. Many of the right wing supporters label Dresden and the bombing as "allied war crime" for example. But thats foolish. Ever heard, they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

Originally Posted by FM_Von_Manstein

As for the German generals being opportunists and supporters of the Nazi party. They might have believed in the changes made to the armed forces, but they did not believe in the Nazi ideals. They supported the Nazi Party because they wanted Germany to be powerful, not because they believed in it's politics.

Right, cause many of them did not believed in "defeating the communistic Untermenschen, called Russians, Balkans etc." is a good thing or at least not a bad thing. Dont be silly. Not everyone was a die hard Nazi. Probably only very few. But most of them did not had much condolence for Russians. Regardles if it was war or not. Because that :

Originally Posted by FM_Von_Manstein

The deaths of soviets sounds pretty good to me.

Was what many thought about it.

[FM_Von_Manstein]

Originally Posted by Crni vuk

Was what many thought about it.

Precisely, to the people of the Satellite states the Germans must have looked at as the do gooders for fighting the evil Soviet Oppressors.

[Crni vuk]

Yeah like the Ukrain or White Russian population which have welcome German units as liberators till they realised what a conquer by the Germans meant.

Either way how you see it. Hitler or Stalin. Neither the one nor the other was a good choice.

I remember a quote from a Russian soldier when he was asked about the War that he said, in the end it was a decision between 2 dicators. And he simply choose the one who spoke Russian.

But what I meant was the view of German high military officers on the Russian population in General. And they had less concerns in killing masses of Russians then compared to Brits or French for example which somewhat was in favour of the general Nationalsocialistic doctrine of the Rassenlehre and Untermenschen beeing inferior to the Germanic population. Hands down, if there really would not have been at least in the base of it some overlaping of the Nazi-ideology with what some military officers believed the Nazis would never have been so succesfull in their attempts. Its not like there have not been already a oppsition present since the 1933 even from the military side (See Tresckow and a few other Generals which wanted already in that time to remove Hitler), but those had a very hard time to convince other military personal of their point of view and explain Hitle was a danger to the Reich. For obvious reasons. Particularly after situations like the Munich Agreement it became almost impossible to search for any critical voices cause what people feared didnt happened. War in 1938 with Britain and France what many officers feared since no one believed that it could be won at that point and even the Invasion of Poland many thought (cause of 1938 ) the Brits and French would remain quiet again. It was to late at some point though and those voices that have been critical about the Wehrmachts progression in war efforts and Nazi ideas have been removed from the Military (Blomberg–Fritsch Affair) and replaced with loyal to the Nazi party officers. This includes as well others like Manstein, Rommel and many other Generals which have been even to the end loyal to the Nazi gouvernement. Since both have dissagreed to any attempt of removing Hitler even after it was eminent that the war was loost, at least Staufenberg realised that even though he was a Nazi suporter in the begining. I repeat Manstein might not have been a Nazi in the traditional sense but he was in some aspects close to the Nationalsocialistic ideals and ideas. There is for example a order from 1941 "Reichenau Order" by Manstein which explicit involved the killing of jews.


Erich von Manstein - Indopedia
However, von Manstein did issue an order on November 20, 1941: his version of the infamous "Reichenau Order" [2], which equated "partisans" and "Jews" and called for draconic measures against them. Hitler and Field Marshal von Rundstedt recommended the "Reichenau Order" as being exemplary and encouraged other generals to issue similar orders. Not all did, in fact, it seems that only a minority did do so. Von Manstein was among those who voluntarily issued such an order. It stated that:

This struggle is not being carried on against the Soviet Armed Forces alone in the established form laid down by European rules of warfare.
Behind the front too, the fighting continues. Partisan snipers dressed as civilians attack single soldiers and small units and try to disrupt our supplies by sabotage with mines and infernal machines. Bolshevists left behind keep the population freed from Bolshevism in a state of unrest by means of terror and attempt thereby to sabotage the political and economic pacification of the country. Harvests and factories are destroyed and the city population in particular is thereby ruthlessly delivered to starvation.
Jewry is the middleman between the enemy in the rear and the remains of the Red Army and the Red leadership still fighting. More strongly than in Europe they hold all key positions of political leadership and administration, of trade and crafts and constitutes a cell for all unrest and possible uprisings.
The Jewish Bolshevik system must be wiped out once and for all and should never again be allowed to invade our European living space.
The German soldier has therefore not only the task of crushing the military potential of this system. He comes also as the bearer of a racial concept and as the avenger of all the cruelties which have been perpetrated on him and on the German people."
...
"The soldier must appreciate the necessity for the harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual bearer of the Bolshevik terror. This is also necessary in order to nip in the bud all uprisings which are mostly plotted by Jews."
(Nuremberg trials proceedings, Vol. 20, pp. 639 - 645 [3])

Jewry is the middleman between the enemy in the rear and the remains of the Red Army and the Red leadership still fighting.
This is exactly one of the propagandistic phrases carried out by the Nazi party for many years. As well before the war. Comparing all jews with Bolschewiks or label them as enemies to the Reich. Though I dont have to explain to you know how idiotic that kind of rhetoric was ? A person as inteligent like Manstein might have been a good tactician. But he's not simply the honorable soldier many (even in Germany) tried to portayed him during the 60s cause it helped to create a clean image of the Wehrmacht for the Cold War efforts. Today thankefull we have a better understanding of many things. Ideology should never taint our view on history.

[Nikitns]

Originally Posted by FM_Von_Manstein

Well if it hadn't been stopped Germany would have lost much much sooner. It means something kid.

No Germany wouldn't. Lmao. Besides how hard is it 2 stop it? the offensive was out of steam.

The deaths of soviets sounds pretty good to me. I'm pretty sure the tens millions of people that suffered under Soviet occupation and communist rule would agree with that statement.

In that case, I believe you should leave this discussion. Your 2 dumb to talk about such things.

Hell countries "occupied" by Soviets post destalinization were not bad 2 live in. Most of them were already backward b4 WW2.

But even Stalinist country is far better than Nazi Germany. People like you should be beaten up imo. Unfourtenatly that isn't possible though

[FM_Von_Manstein]

Originally Posted by Nikitns

No Germany wouldn't. Lmao. Besides how hard is it 2 stop it? the offensive was out of steam.

Um no? The offensive was not out of steam. There were hundreds of Russian Divisions coming up against Manstein, had he not stopped the offensive it would have just kept rolling forwards and forced AGC and AGN to make strategic withdraws back into Poland in order to reorganize their lines.

[Crni vuk]

Hands down. Manstein did a lot to secure the frontline in the east and some of his offensives have been quite spectacular. Like the capture and fighting around Charkov. But fact is as well even if Hitler gave Manstein a free hand in all his operations Germany had no chance to win the war or its targets.

[FM_Von_Manstein]

Originally Posted by Crni vuk

Hands down. Manstein did a lot to secure the frontline in the east and some of his offensives have been quite spectacular. Like the capture and fighting around Charkov. But fact is as well even if Hitler gave Manstein a free hand in all his operations Germany had no chance to win the war or its targets.

Probably not, but if Hitler didn't interfere with any strategic or tactical planning of any operation Germany would have won.

[Crni vuk]

please ... you cant believe that really. Won ? What would they have won ?

I see this many times mentioned as pseudo-historic idea without Hitlers mistakes (letz call it that) the Germans would have won.

Its a useless idea even hypotheticaly cause actualy the only way for Germany to win WW2 was ... to never start it. Or letz better say never elect Hitler. As stupid it sounds but thats how it is.

If you think about it what kind of goals Hitler had and the propaganda / targets of the Nazi Party its clear the war would have never stoped cause they would never have achied any of the targets. Killing all Jews and Communists ? Or wining against the Sovietunion, America and ... rest of the world ? You know Herman Goering had already plans for a occupation of Palestina and Israel ... When would they have stoped fighting. When would Germany have tried really to do any truce ? Fact is the financial situation would not have allowed the third Reich to exist without war. Even before 1938 the German gouvernemt was pretty much bankrupt. They would not have been able to pay all their credits back in 1939 which would have caused a major inflation. Almost everything the Nazis did was on credit. All the buildings and stuff they did for the population. Hence why war was needed. With every conquered nation one of the first things the German Bank did was to aquire all finances of the occupied nation. One example. When they had troops deployed somewhere as occuping force they would usualy pay those soldiers in the local currency. That way not the German military / gouvernemt was paying them but the population of the occupied terrirtory.

There is actualy no question if or if not Germany would have loost. The question is more about the time they would have loost. Even if Hitler would not have been involved in the military all they would have achied eventualy would been a delay in defeat.