Guderian: Father of "Blitzkrieg"? - Myth & Reality
Heinz Guderian the father of the German Panzerwaffe is one of the best known German generals from the Second World War. He is also known for his opposition to the Battle of Kursk (Operation Zitadelle) and the early deployment of the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther, yet some historians noted recently that many of Heinz Guderian's claims are not backed up by archives. Well, time to take a closer look.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - / mhv
» paypal donation - www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» minds.com - www.minds.com/militaryhistory...
» SOURCES «
Pöhlmann, Markus: Der Panzer und die Mechanisierung des Krieges: Eine deutsche Geschichte 1890 bis 1945 (Zeitalter der Weltkriege)
Corum, James S.: The Roots of Blitzkrieg. Hans von Seeckt and German Military Reform
Macksey, Kenneth: Generaloberst Heinz Guderian; in : Ueberschär (Hrsg.) Gerd R.: Hitlers militärische Elite - 68 Lebensläufe (3. Auflage), S. 351-358
Guderian, Heinz: Panzer Leader (English Version of “Erinnerungen eines Soldaten”)
Guderian, Heinz: Erinnerungen eines Soldaten
Munzel, Oskar: Die deutschen gepanzerten Truppen bis 1945
Schacter, Daniel L.: the Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers
Citino, Robert M.: The German Way of War. From the Thirty Years’ War to the Third Reich
Citino, Robert M.: The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
#ww2 #panzergeneral #Guderian
Inzwischen hat Dr. Roman Töppel einen Vortrag zu Guderian auf Deutsch gehalten, sehr interessant: kzhead.info/sun/l76lgd15aaeghmg/bejne.html For a German lecture by Dr. Roman Töppel be sure to check out the link above.
The best general in my opinion.
@@wdgaster6258 lol
What was Guderian opinion of Albert Speer cancelling the production of the panzer 4 vs production of the Hetzer and panther despite panther being easier to produce it had a smaller turret ring than the sherman and simplification led to removal of turret powered traverse a major undermining of the panzer design by Speer. Did this lead to tactical flaws with the Hetzer and panther that would not of been evident if panzer 4 had been continued? Given the arrival of 76mm armed easy eight sherman in large numbers and speedy 55mper hour hell cats : example arracourt. As well as the need for more panzer 4 in kursk which Guderian had opposed as a operation.
Panzer leader and achtung panzer great books. Empiricism and historic emotionally moving given the odds against victory of Guderian over Soviets it'd be a tragedy of Soviet occupation if Nato later had not been established to resist Soviet occupation.
How much did Gurdarian and Rome learn from Linda Hart and fuller @military history Visualized?
Thanks for the shoutout and also clearing up some myths. Its hard to live up to the expectations of beeing perfect and the fanboys are getting anoying too
:D
ROFL!
I know right?
Same can be said for Rommel, or Manstein.
Jack Ripper: Add Manstein to the list of German Generals who were overrated.
Lesson of the day is “write your own biography”.
that's an autobiography
If I were to post “write your own autobiography” instead, that would be a tautology.
Imaginary Star Studios "write an autobiography"
That loses the emphasis on “you/your”, which is the entire the point of it. If I am not at liberty to be playful with my writing, I would rather not write at all. Thankfully, I am yet at liberty to write as I like.
Feel free I'm just pointing out what you're writing makes no sense.
I love the nuance MHV brings to this or any discussion. Nothing is ever black or white. And if you look past the surface and try to understand why certain things got distorted in the history books, it gives a much clearer picture of what is actually true. Great job!
Well, this is the difference between a _historian_ and other professions like journalists or even those advertising-types.
'Nothing is ever black or white.' Oh really? Well what about 'The Black and White Minstrel Show'? Or 'Black and White' by Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson? Or the song used in the Film 'The Voyage of the Magic Christian'. That is 'Black and White, everybody's getting up tight'? You said NOTHING is Black and White and I already came up with three examples. Sorry but your logic and facts are faulty. Things are written in Black and White! Case closed! GUD ARYAN is God. No nuance is needed simplistic stories are best.
@@vladdrakul7851 - In the “Black and White Minstrel Show” you had white people painted black, thus they were neither black nor white, the song of McCartney and Jackson, well, a cooperation between a white dude and a black dude is almost by definition neither black _or_ white, and the list goes on. If you make arguments, please make sure that they are at least factually correct.
@@mediocreman6323 I was factually correct and I was joking as well (use of the Black and White MINSTREL Show was on purpose, the ironic joke part, if you will, as half of them were fake 'blacks', well noticed). However a song called 'Black and White' by a black and a white guy is indeed Black and White. Saying it is not is reality denial or at least very poor vocabulary. Why does the fact of co operation make it not so? If you make arguments, please make sure that they are at least logical!!! Pointlessly offended by a very mediocre man's non linear arguments! Denial is not a river in Egypt and birds used to be dinosaurs! Facts! Cat got your tongue or was it the dog??
@@vladdrakul7851 - show me a single bird who was a dinosaur. They _evolved_ from dinosaurs, but they never… Yeah, I get it, it is guys like you of all people to descend down on us plebs to educate us.
You should do one about Charles de Gaulle.
Kyllian Masson Yeah please do one on the myths of De Gaule and the French resistance in general
Yeah sach dat be-yotch froggy
@@lovablesnowman Living in paris years ago I asked a french workmate about all the small plaques found every where in paris commemorating resistance members that fell or other battles in august 44. I asked him were there that many people in the resistance. He smiled and said, "during the war there wernt that many, after the war, lots!"
They actually almost close french archives so it's not going to happen soon except if he's doing it already.
@the Achaean Im sure the guys in the 51st Highlanders or the 30th infantry brigade in Calais felt like they were in plenty of danger.
It seems Guderian was the best general for action - tactics and Manstein was the best for strategy. I would love to see a video comparing and contrasting the skill sets for both generals.
k6151960 Rommel was a far better tactitian... in fact Germany had many great tactitians that were just as good as Guderian, whom in my opinion was a much greater theorist than a tactitian. Nevertheless, claiming any one man to be the best i think doesn't do justice to the other greats.
Wasn't Guderian the primary general leading the charge to the channel in the Ardennes offensive? On what do you base Rommel as having superior tactical skill?
I wonder what's manstein s strategy for relieving paulus after convincing hitler to order paulus to stay put
@@k6151960 We can asses the way how Rommel managed the inferior Afrika Korps against theAllied troops and equipment put at the disposal of best generals Britain had in North Afrika. He always was more skilled in spite of having less manpower, fuel, scarcity of reinforcements and spare parts, and quantity of tanks. To that you have to add that he has never had air and artillery parity.
@@k6151960 No Guderian had nothing to do with the Ardennes Offensive. If I remember correctly Hitler is behind the operation and Hasso Von Manteuffel was one of the heads of the operation(personally in charge of the 5th Panzer Division), as well as potentially Walther Model
As a historian I really enjoyed your analyses of memory and the recollection of our own past. I was blessed with having a superb professor for Historical Methods. Historical Methods is the class where a historian learns how to analyze primary sources. My professor taught us not to trust recollections as they are typically skewed. And to learn how to see around the story to the “truth”. As a Guderian fan boy I was rather displeased that there was no discussion about his actions in the early stages of the war. Especially France 1940. Do you have any opinions of Guderian’s actions in 1940 during the invasion of France? I am listening to an older podcast titled, “The History of World War 2 Podcast.” Its quite enjoyable and informative, yet the audio quality is a bit low.
As usual cheers and thanks for the content!
Thank you! Nope, not really, another problem is that - as far as I know - THE book on France is Karl-Heinz Friesers Blitzkrieg Legend, which is already quite dated, but he also - as stated in the video - took Guderian at face value at Kursk. btw. I have podcast of my own: Military History Verbalized: shows.pippa.io/5ac4c085c931db244d2f21a8 itunes.apple.com/de/podcast/military-history-visualized-podcast/id1345347986?l=en can also be found on all major podcast apps.
Military History Visualized hahha I’mreading that very book right now ( I found it on my grandfather’s house)
He had nasty quarrels with generals von Kleist and von Kluge in the way he employed the panzer formations under his command.
10/10 profile pic
Thanks for reminding me that I have no girlfriend.
Convert to Islam and become super religious and you’ll find a wife easily peezy lemony squeezey
@@sufimuslimlion4114 Instructions unclear im arrested because of child abuse
@@sufimuslimlion4114 Instruction unclear, I have become the man of Allah and I have no desire for accompanying woman
@@anl8244 Yeah dude. I said islam not Catholic Church buddy.
@@sisophon1982 K but a “man of Allaah” has to be a real man. Not a weak pathetic little worm online who couldn’t handle the slightest difficulties or violence and would crumble if he had to fight and die defend his family let alone fight and die to defend Islam and Muslims. Y’all misunderstanding that Islam for men is meant for REAL MEN who are tough and fear no one and nothing except God and would gladly rather die fighting than to live and see his religion, family, community humiliated. Y’all can’t be trans and convert to become Muslim women... try working on becoming somewhat men first (i know it’s tough for infidel boys to become even somewhat men) and then think about Islam and becoming lions of men
Outstanding commentary on memory recollection. I can attest to this as an F18 flyer from 20 years ago, I was stunned to see how much I couldn't remember or flat out got wrong recollecting when I touched based with current F18 flyers. Well said. Your videos are very well done and are at the highest academic caliber. Great stuff keep it up! Looking forward to disgesting all your videos in the coming months!
Just found your videos and I love them! It's hard to find videos of Germans giving their opinions on their own generals during WW2. It's much appreciated!
One of the best parts about getting older is seeing admired figures brought "down" to Earth (Rommel, Guderian) and also reviled villains (Caligula and Tiberius for me, recently) brought "up" to near normality by more informed and reasoned historians like yourself and your sources. I love having my mind changed for the better.
And nero.
Historians maybe better informed & reasonable, or maybe the line between hero & villain is less obvious & more subjective than we are comfortable with?
Kerri Wilson With History, it normally is. Although many historical characters are easily categorized under “hero” or “villain”, you often have to question the morality. And many were actually good people that fought for an arguably evil regime, like Rommel and Yamamoto.
@@avelus5984 Well it was easier for Rommel and Yamamoto there wasn't many innocent civilians in the desert or ocean to complicate matters.
@@SirAntoniousBlock Sure. But don't imply that the Allies didn't do anything wrong, because even though it's incomparable to what the Axis did, they still committed crimes.
Nice one MHV. Absolutely agree - stay away from memoirs
thank you!
You two should do a podcast together at some point
Eternal Moderate Second that.
Quite so. Belton Cooper's Death Traps trashed the reputation of the M4 Sherman and it has taken years for perceptions to change - the same goes for German veterans denigrating the Red Army as a mindless and suicidal horde to cover up their own failings.
TIK Will you ever do video about Heinz Guderian?
Great Show indeed. I still think he was one of the best German Generals of WW2 , Along with Model, Rommel & Manstein!
I'm reading Achtung - Panzer! now. It's pretty interesting
Mr. McGibblet 2304 Panzer Ases (Frantz Kurowsky )Tiger in the mud (Otto Carius 502 Tiger Battalion) Why Hollywood take note and make really movies instead making nonsense lake Fury etc
Where did you get a copy of Acting Panzer from, was it in English? How much...?
I got it from Barnes And Noble online for about 15 dollars
Prof_Kaos Please try Amazon l hope You get one it's more about German tanks and tanks destroyers in Panzer Ases part 1.2.3 by Frantz Kurowsky WW Il reporter and Tiger in the mud -Otto Carius Battalion #502 all of them are great book's
Tanks all 😋
@Military History Visualized Brilliant video I'm rewatching. I especially appreciate the statements about memory and critique of historians taking memoirs at face value, and even more so your own admission of having been misled by what you had read. You turn it into a teaching moment with your honesty. It is admirable and unfortunately often too rare trait.
I really appreciate you putting these videos out regularly. Thanks for doing this, and please keep them coming!
Thanks go to my patreons!
As always, well reasoned and well presented.
I thought Panzer Leader to be like the original title, recollection about an experience. I thought it much more crucial to see how it was that Guderian thought, than what he did. Reading Panzer Leader for the first time ages ago I realized that he wasn't the myth television made him to be (and yknow I've not seen a single full length documentary about him). I reckoned if people came to that idea that it was from Achtung Panzer! or residual hype from the period. Always thought Panzer Leader to be way more about personalities than strategy or ideas; which perhaps is part of reconciling the past as memoirs oft do. When strategy was discussed it seemed rather generalized. Loved the way you summarized there at the end, I think those are solid metrics for an individual's literary account vs a historical record. (Not directly addressing your video here, which are much appreciated and unparalleled in comprehensiveness, but touching on some of the general themes)
Bonus points for the Starcraft reference!
Great video as usual and on a topic that needs to be addressed. If you could do a review on Manstein and his "Lost Victories", that would be ideal!
I hope everyone has a great day and stays safe. 🤗
@Defend Europe I hope you go to hell even when people are nice you people act like pricks
This makes very interesting listening especially around writers motivations and viewpoints. Thanks!
for those, who don't know yet, I also got a second channel: Military History NOT Visualized with 4-6 videos per month, also footage from various events: kzhead.info
Gutes Video. Da es hier jetzt hauptsächlich um die Bewertung seiner Schriften ging, kannst du noch ein Video über das tatsächliche Wirken von Guderian beim Aufbau und Einsatz der Panzerwaffe machen?
Verbalized?
Military History Visualized Maby when new podcast comes it might be a good idea to inform it on a community post.
Military History Visualized have you done a video on the schutzstaffel, if not could you? I would love to learn more about them in your format.
Military History Visualized long subscriber here..... Why do all of your videos seem to hate against the wehrmacht? Not judging, and agree with some of your points, but your hatred of the Deutsch Wehrmacht seems almost total... Is this because of your Austrian background?? Still love you tho...
First off, let me say “hats off” to Military History Visualized (MHV) for putting this video together. It is an advanced subject that probably goes over the head of most casual You Tube viewers that thrive on simplified information delivered in a 10 - 15 minute video format. It is such a refreshing change to have a more in depth discussion that wraps in credible sources along with a mix of MHV’s opinion. Trying to better understand a historical figure requires a significant amount of broad, period knowledge and a high level of understanding of nuance and context. Clearly, these skills are needed for a personality like Guderian. In terms of “high level of understanding of nuance and context,” there are a few points I would like to offer that in my opinion may provide a better picture. First, I would submit Guderian is being overly criticized / accused of borrowing the ideas of Voclkheim and others without giving them due credit. Military Theory by active duty military officers does not operate in a vacuum and it does not operate like Academia. As MHV pointed out, Guderian shared views common to other officers. Just because on officer may have written about a military idea first, that doesn’t mean someone else independently or in conjunction have the same idea. Before any military officer commits ideas to paper, these ideas have been gleaned thru experience and discussion with peers. Additionally, active duty officers don’t have the same kind of citation requirement and culture as academics do. Officers like Vockheim have written work was no exception to all of these considerations and neither was Guderian’s. Do we really know how much Vockheim influenced Guderian, or who influenced Vockheim? No, we do not because we did not know these officers. The body of Guderian’s pre-WWII written work shows a clear evolution of thought given the context of his current assignment and experience, target audience, and what he hoped to achieve with those written documents and books. As MHV touched upon, Guderian not only contributed to the theoretical development of armored warfare but distilled these ideas down to something manageable to be acted upon and was one of the first to put these ideas into practice. Just because modern citation has gotten more stringent due to internet fueled plagiarism, we should not forget the context of Guderian’s time period or his culture of being an active duty officer in the German Army which is why he wrote the way he did. Being the “father” does not mean he had to come up with every idea on his own in a vacuum. Let’s also not forget that modern historians like Corum have their own bias as they try to earn their living through “reinterpretation” of previous events or offering greater context. If anything, our view of Guderian may be “fuzzy” because historians want to continue to reinterpret or dramatize their own work…no less an offense which Guderian is now being accused of. I’m not trying to say Guderian didn’t have a ego or could have given credit to other officers that helped him shape his own thoughts…lets just remember the context and hold historians to the same stringent standards we try to make our historical subjects meet. On this point, I would advance that instead of finding fault with Guderian, the big takeaway this video should offer offers is the rich trove of additional sources that can offer greater insight into the development of the panzerwaffe. As seminal as Guderian’s work and experience is, it is only one point of view. I think the video takes some weak positions based upon misinterpreting the historical records, but this is really not the venue for that kind of discussion. However, I do want to offer a contrary opinion about memoirs. We should NOT take away the notion to avoid primary sources because of human bias. We just need to understand when we see it and keep in mind appropriate context. “Face Value” is a human judgment by both the writer and reader. Historians or critics looking back at a person or event are not necessarily smarter or better informed than the persons who lived it. For example, how do we know Beck didn’t oppose Guderian’s ideas verbally or off the record? If Guderian says he experienced friction with Beck, we should believe him. General Beck would not be the first or last Chief of Staff of a Army to subordinate his own views because they were unpopular with his political masters or the rank and file / subordinates in the Army. I could go into greater detail with specifics about the German Army, but this isn’t the right venue. To conclude, let’s not have minor disagreements make us forget how good this video is. Like I said earlier, this video is well done and I appreciate the points of view offered and the springboard it serves for further discussion…a great compliment for any historical work. I don’t often give You Tube videos a “thumbs up,” but in my opinion, this one earned it.
very well said, this is the best comment in the entire discussion. It hits the major issues (that were pretty much an eyesore) violated in the video, and I couldnt agree more on your take on historical memoirs as valuable first-hand insights. Nothing can be free from filtration, so if MHV is suggesting for Hart and Nehring to be excluded due to "front-line exp" then I guess they are in any case assuming that those are "more free" from historical bias than Guderian's, which is untrue. We shouldnt be basing discourse of which academic writing is more or less filtered, instead we should as you said access and assess the multiplicity of narratives, perspectives and accounts that have equal value to memoirs like Guderian's. Additionally, the video presents Guderian's omission of credit as detrimental. In both texts, Achtung Panzer as MHV stated was not catered to military research, but for public distribution, and Panzer Leader is plainly a memoir. One should not expect a research paper / thesis to evolve from the two texts.
Great. I especially liked the assessment of someone's memory over time. Keep it up.
Just a small question, when describing German military operations of the Second World War, when were the terms "Fall" (like Fall Gelb and Fall Weiss), "Unternehmen", and "Operation" used and what is the difference between the three terms? I thought that Fall meant Case and both Unternehmen and Operation meant operation, was there a change in denomination throughout the war or was it simply used differently between preferences of the individual speaking/writing?
As a German I understand this usage of "Fall" as "what to do in that certain case". It is more a name for the disclosed "files" of the plan. Maybe something like Order 66 in Star Wars.
great video thought provoking and has made me reconsider some of my views on guderian thank you but that is what history is about constantly challenging what we know about people and events and discovering more about them thank you and keep up the good work
Enjoyed this video? Consider supporting me on patreon: patreon.com/mhv Ör donating a book from my wishlist: www.amazon.de/hz/wishlist/ls/3LJIXNJIUXJES
Wanna do the same about Tameichi Hara's autobiography?
When you talk about Beck supporting ideas of Guderian you don't give the sources as you do in earlier part of the video. Where can I find information to confirm you words? By the way if I understand correctly, Guderian wanted Pz. Div. working separately with Luftwaffe; not Pz. Brgds. working as a part of a Div. as Beck suggested in your video, so It doesn't contradict what Guderian said. Though Guderian book is like "Me ,Me ,Me! Hitler is furious, evil and stupid and other generals don't do anything about It and then It's too late" I don't agree he was a bad general. On my opinion Beck was sabotaging everything he could and most of his views where identical to PM Churchill's.
As a psychology grad who dated Dr. Tanya Jonker, the world's formost expert on memory, I can tell you this guy is bang on when he speaks about memory. It absolutely is affected by bias and changes with each retrieval.
Wasn't expecting a discussion of scientifically accurate memory stuff, but that's MHV for yah. Memory is way more fallible than most people realize.
Great analysis, MHV. I appreciate the way you dissect Guderian's work! I concur with James Corum's "far from modest" appraisal. A memoir should be about events one observed or participated IN, more than about one's actions in shaping those events.Thank you for a concise presentation, once again.
OMGoodness!!!! I loved this. I read Achturng! Panzer when I was 12 years old. Heinz Guderian was a name that I had learned playing wargames in the late 60's I enjoyed the book; but, one could tell it was a concept book. And Panzer Leader was a personal account of his struggles. One could see that he was the Hero of his story. Lol, he didn't like staff work. You mentioned General Beck; his idea of building panzer brigades was more about command and control of the units and rather than opposition to paner divisions. He thought that they could motorize the support units in the brigade to keep up with the armor; but, that it could be done in smaller chunks over time. Guderian sees to have been the all or nothing kind of guy. And perhaps??? that is why he felt he was fighting uphill. I donno.
Been enjoying your videos. You are humble and introspective. Rare qualities on KZhead and in the classroom. Respect! you even cursed.
Thanks for the lesson! I am really going to reread Guderians works with a more open mind now, great video keep up the good work.
1:58 You brought the Reichskangaruh!
I'm quite sure (if memory serves 😏) this is one of your best efforts of illumination (or myth-busting). Well done, Sir
On this day of Remembering for those who have given all in service to the United States of America, it is my personal belief that those men and women deserve an honest history. Not fairytales and propaganda , but History, in all it's glory and ugliness. I'm 62 and I have loved to read history almost as soon as I could understand 2-3 syllable words ( in my memory)). Slowly, I've learned to accept the gray of history as opposed to the black and white political.view. Hells bells, my opinion on the Sherman Tank has changed numerous times as I've learned more. For the record ,my opinion is that the M4 was a good tank that did the job, especially when handled by well trained crews and competent leadership. Thanks for your MHV, always worth watching.
Always interesting, always informative!
Another excellent, open minded and educational episode. Thank you.
Will you have you? do a video on the debate regarding attacking Kursk? aka Who favored who did not favor attacking and why- thanks- you have some great videos.
7:29, being able to efficiently synthesize many previous work is no small achievement, though 9:18, in an army, you don't know everyone and if you do you don't necessarily have an interesting anecdote to mention about everyone, so it's not surprising that there isn't a chapter on everyone; it is an AUTObiography, after all, not an academic synthesis
Panzer Leader is criticized because " there isn't a chapter on everyone"? That's news to me. I thought it's because Guderian barely mentions anyone(!) who contributed to the development of armor. sorry-for-the-sarcasm ;)
SNOUPS4 j
I don't mind the sarcasm, it was both funny and interesting :)
Brilliant video. For me this is your best yet. Very balanced and informative. Great job!!!
Could you please do one of Von Manstein
I agree. I first read both of Guderian's books as a teenager then again about 45 years later. My evaluation had changed too. I also agree on one's memory not being efficient. But I confess over the years I've come to wonder if " Blitzkrieg" was more a discovery learned, than a theory put into practice. ??
I discuss the "Blitzkrieg" issue in this video: kzhead.info/sun/f6eHp5adZIybm68/bejne.html It was more an Allied term for something that was NOT particularly new.
I do admire the detail you place in an argument when bringing down various godlings. I'm one of the many who admired Guderian but some of that is gone as time and a better understanding of both historical methods & individuals have come age.
Hey Bernhard cooles Video aber kleine Frage was hälst du von dem Buch Panzer Commander von Hans von Luck. Wenn du es nicht hast könnte ich dir die audio version via audible zu kommen lassen
Would you consider making a video on the purpose of half tracks in wwii? It is a subject that I’ve been curious about but unable to see any videos on it.
Wehr-abu? I like it. I also noticed the giant kangaroo tank in the graphic. Nice self referential gag!
Thanks, i was going to make an exposition about someone that i admire (Guderian) and it will help me to make it more accurate
can you do the relations between de gaulle and the other allied leaders during WWII? i feel like it can make an interesting topic to talk about
Didnt even watch the video but i know its gonna be great, so : Great video, military history visuialized! Also, are you from Austria?
EnderDiamondBoy He is.
He also failed art school
And he is going to move to munich
And he told me that he hates juice idk why
Habe you heard of the and Will you be working with Indy Neidell and the Time ghost Channel on World War 2? I saw how many KZheadrs are collaborating on the project but I did not see you on there. I think you provide great insight and knowledge on these topics and I hope maybe you will work with Indy and the team. Thanks again for the great content!
can you please do a video on Manstein and Kesselring
Funny, it was von Manstein's memoirs that made me take memoirs with a grain of salt (sometimes a whole salt shaker full), but enjoy reading that perspective. I was also a Guderian fanboy to an extent (still have not read Panzer Leader, but have two 1/6th scale action figures of ol' Schneller Heinz), but did read Achtung Panzer. Makes me want to go dig his memoirs out (I have them around here somewhere).
Enlightening. Panzer Leader was my primary source of information pertaining to Guderian, and although it is slightly disappointing to learn of his embellishment it still seems that his skill, knowledge, and accomplishments are worthy of praise regardless.
Very nice and interesting. Like always
Can you do a video on Manstien soon please??
Hey MHV, will you ever do a video on von Strachwitch? There was a great book published about him back in 2014 that I highly recommend
Fast Heinz is my spirit animal.
Could u do Erhard Raus sometime? His book panzer warfare on the eastern front is very interesting shows how the German army lacked proper equipment.
The best part was about how your own memories are influenced by your actions after the fact. Pertinent to so many autobiographies.
This is a great show.. Dual language in same time! Keep on your good work.. And wishing you, since all of us being lockdown because of covid19 pandemic..stay alive & keep safe always..
Thanks for your insight. Can you assess Gen. Hermann Balck
A very thoughtful examination of the myth and reality of Heinz Guderian.
There is a video game franchise called World Conqueror where you play mostly during WW2. In the fourth and most recent installment, World Conqueror 4, both Guderian and Manstein are playable, along other characters.
Are you planning a video about the usage of light armoured vehicles like the SdKfz. 234?
unlikely, I have a H.Dv. on Panzerspähwagen if I remember correctly, but not much besides that. Although, I might discuss it on my second channel: Military History for Adults at one point.
I like to listen to your videos when I'm driving.
You should check out the podcasts, they are far longer
Do one on Manstein please!
Nice video, I would only comment that for those who already watched Generals working, it is not uncommon for them to disagree with something while signing papers to make the idea advance. Therefore I think it is very possible for Beck to have worked against the development of Panzer Divisions while signing orders to build more tanks, no surprises. In the US there was a general named John Knowles Herr, the last cavalry commander, it is interesting to compare Herr's and Guderian's history. Finally, let's remember that Guderian played important roles as a doctrine theorist, as a technician, in panzer development, and as a field commander, few officers in history succeeded on these three fields.
Thanks for the great video
All good points on human memory. I would add that when he or anyone is referencing someone else liking or disliking something that is not in the historical record it is possible they are remembering (as best they can) a conversation that ever made it to the written record. In the case of WW2 Germany it might have been a dangerous thing to put something down in writing that disagreed with those higher up in the COC. The fact that you can find records people disagreeing with strategies may appear to remove support for this theory but we then have to consider who is making the criticism and their standing within the German command at the time. A officer who was well liked by the upper command would have less fear of writing down their criticisms while someone who was out of favor or just returning to favor might say or think something but never write it down and be very careful who they included in their thoughts.
Hey :) Wollte mal feedback geben. Die grafikunterstützten Themen sind leichter zu verstehen und gefallen mir besser als die, in welchen du selbst zu sehen bist. Nur meine persönliche Meinung. Super Beiträge übrigens jedes Mal! Und als eines der kommenden Themen würde mich ein Vergleich aller Atomprogramme der WW2 Mächte interessieren. Die Frage, ob die USA nur schneller waren oder die anderen von Anfang an keine Chance im Rennen um die Bombe hatten.
The desire for independent tank units is clear even in the von Seeckt era, and in commentary on maneuvers in the 1920s it's mentioned that tanks are best used en masse to facilitate breakthrough. If anyone is responsible for the success of the panzer arm, I'd put it to the von Seeckt reforms, even if they had only dummy tanks to work with.
Nicely done. Hard to fit nuance in the sound bite of a KZhead video.
Are all of Guderian's books available in english? if yes? where?
on a side note : does anyone know if Donitz's pre war book is available anywhere?
IN his book he does mention about Beck building the Panzer forces HOWEVER whilst adding extra Battle Groups to the roster, he was not increasing the supply of Tanks so when war broke out, not only were the Germans still using training tanks (Pz 1 & Pz 2), they also had to use Czech 35(t) & 38(t).
I know that my question has nothing (or just a bit) to do with this video . But could you please explain why more than 1 000 AT-Shots were needed (in average) to destroy one tank . Even if equipment losses and HE Shells to counter infantry are included this number just sound too big for me .
MHV: Well made sir! The honest and frank organization of your thoughts is, as usual, excellent. Guderian was one of Germany's finest commanders, but not an armored strategical and tactical genius. Put another way, if Patton was in Guderian's place...well, let's just say it was fortunate for the Allies that Patton didn't wear Wehrmacht grey! Keep up the good work!
Any chance of covering the best military in WW1 and 2 ie Australia ?
Hello friend. I just subscribed to you channel. I am Danish and I love your history video. I am a history nerd.
I would love to see one of these on Manstein!
Are there any books that you would recommend about German tanks from World War 2 from the German side? I'd like to learn more about that aspect of the war.
I don't have any books to offer. But I knew 3 documentary series you can watch. *Tanks!* is an old Discovery channel documentary from the 1990s about the German tank arm as a summary for dummies. *Great tank battles* isn't so much of dry documentary with data, numbers maps and such - but rather this documentary is seeing the war from the perspective of the solidier on the ground, and the veterans on both sides talks about the tank battles they fought against each other and what tactics they used. And with computer models one can get a simple understanding on how the many different tank battles was fought. And last but not least we got *German war files* which is a series for tanknerds and interested people alike.... for an entire hour you will be able to hear about different types of vehicles...SPGs, Tigers, Panthers, Panzer I and II, PanzerII, StuGs, Tank destroyers... you name it. Tanks! kzhead.info/sun/qpWfhdmMraWri3k/bejne.html Greatest Tank Battles kzhead.info/sun/oL6elqmMhGdtnIU/bejne.html German war files kzhead.info/sun/adCwZc-brXWBeJs/bejne.html
"Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius is a decent read
Thx for all compliments
Submarine liminal? Ohhhh... got it. Love these vids.
Do Manstein aswell!
The important thing to take from memoirs is that they're 1 person's perspective. Granted I'm an educated adult who understand when someone is trying to push an ideology on you, but I like to read them to get people's perspective. Understanding all viewpoints is key to understanding history. If you want to get into military history, learn about the war itself and how it happened, then read the memoirs of individual soldiers/sailors/airmen etc.
Macksey preface in "Guderian Creator of the Blitzkrieg" describes Guderians narrative shortcomings in light of what the circumstances were during "Erinnerungen eines Soldaten" writing. Macksey sources are also impressive Guderian himself, multiple German generals and officials, war diaries and letters, family, documents and photos from Bundesarchiv ect. So even if it's not without errors I trust it more than debate and retrospective analysis done generations later.
I so much missed the rock ending!
Macksey stated in his biography that Guderian wasn't able to use his own records as he wrote his Memoir.
Wow, I guess I was wrong about my opinion of Guderian. I guess this is why you should read multiple sources. Thanks MHV!
basically everyone was for ages, the only ones critical I encountered so far were Corum and Pöhlmann, so in that case even multiple sources wouldn't have made a difference, I assume.
note that Pöhlmann published I think in 2016 and he called out some leading German (military) historians.
I can't imagine a fine upright Nazi lying or distorting events! Lol One of the many smart things Rommel did was to not tarnish his mythology by surviving the war and penning a bullshit autobiography.
Evan Bollschweiler If Guderian was dishonest about anything, he would not have been able to defeat a tank force superior in numbers and in armour thickness. His tactics not only caused the downfall of Poland and France in record time but are still being used today in modern warfare.
Mat E So only humble honest leaders win battles?
Please do Billy Mitchell!
I read Panzer Leader in college and admit becoming a "fan boy" of Heinz. I remember being inspired by his self described "innovations" and tenacity in accomplishing his goals. However I also remember joking with a friend about if they just did everything Heinz said, they would have won the war on all fronts. Of course that was over 30 years ago and I know what you said about memories :-)
Funny enough, most of Germany's losses are just that simple. Not just Guderian, but many senior Army leaders were rebuffed in favor of Hitler's ambitions and Nazi leadership idolization of what war is. Even as the Soviet army was preparing their forces outside the city of Berlin to conquer it Hitler was sending troops towards Prague because thats where he thought they were actually going to attack.
4:30 W ö r s e GERMAN COMEDY INTENSIFIES
Senpai noticed me :3
Comedy in Germany is a joke. Comedy in German is Austrian.
Speaking of the book, "Panzer Leader", what do you comment regarding his remarks regarding: a) Panther tank is the "problem-child" of the Panzerwaffe b) belated production of the Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer undermines the anti-tank capabilities of the infantry units in the Eastern Front. Take Care and excellent videos.
One thing that caught my eye back when I was reading Panzer Leader was that, when he was given the job of Inspector General of the Armoured Forces, a document was drafted delineating his responsibilities. They included all armoured vehicles except for heavy assault guns (we're talking StuGs and the like here), which fell under the artillery arm. He goes on to lament how damaging that was to the German tank arm, and that, upon taking the job, he had missed that loophole, and later couldn't correct it because the top artillerymen had too much pull with Hitler. That's when I called BS. No way he'd miss something like that. My guess is that he wanted the job so badly that he took it anyway (something he denies). I'm pretty sure that if I went and read the book again, I'd find a lot of such inconsistencies that escaped me back then, all of them designed to make him look good.
9:09 Von Fallout-Bockelberg
Thats the same outro sargon uses, isnt it?
At 11:26 I think you meant _"Settling_ old Feuds? "
Aren't there some modest authors of memoirs though? Reading memoir sections of books of scientists in natural science, they've often come across as quite humble and they often make a point of stressing the contributions from colleagues, predecessors and science team members. The quote: "If I can see far it's because i'm standing on thw shoulders of giants" come to mind here. Then again, in military culture, assertiveness and pro-active dispositions seem to be favored among high ranking officers. So maybe it's difficult to find a modest officer, let alone one who wrote memoirs.
yeah, there are many factors at play. A scientist does motivate people quite differently, basically all his students and colleagues are already full-blown nerds. Whereas Guderian had mostly to deal with "regular" men. So, I guess one develops a certain style over time and as far as I remember his memoirs were really exciting to read. And if you look at what is in the media and also on KZhead, I would say "narrative sells".
Modesty is not just the accepted norm within natural sciences academia. It's the most reasonable disposition. Something like: Every scientist worthy of his title knows enough about the world to know just how little he knows. And during conversation they'll often go into great details to remain humble. Not all of them naturally, but such behavior is frowned upon. OTOH most men in uniform, military in particular, don't have the habit of STFUPing even when they're out of their element. And in my experience when they grow old they often became clowns and the living proof of that maxim : in no other human organization there is more stupidity per square meter than in military. Maybe it's it's because the military is full of contradictions: You are taught to sacrifice lives to save lives. You are both political and apolitical. You preach virtues, yet walk over your colleagues if the chance arises. You need to show the initiative and the blind obedience. To show the strength of character while executing the order no matter how stupid. You are a lion and an ass-kisser. In most likeliness, everything that you are taught, you'll never get to use in practice. And in case that the war actually happens, you glory days, are everyone else's worst nightmare. All in all the military is somewhat similar to riding the corporate ladder. No wonder it breeds the same kind of character.
Bo's'n Bruce: Can't say I think the military is full or contradictions. And the irrational behaviour that you point out is hardly the norm within the armed forces. They wouldn't be able to achieve their results or function effectively if they were all clowns. The contradictions rather stem from the culture shock between what men in the armed forces were taught and brought up with in civilian society and how those values completely contrast with the necessary values needed in war for soldiers to function. In civil society, men were brought up with very "soft" values. Be nice to other people. Hurting other people is wrong. Killing is absolutely verboten. In the military they have to have those values beaten out of them and be repurposed and taught that being "nice" is not good. You need to demand that your peers perform and punish them if they are found wanting, and that killing is right when you're killing the enemy. More ancient societies didn't have the same problems because they usually contained a warrior class and warfare and skirmishes between different societies was more commonplace. Being a competent fighter and a known slayer of enemies didn't earn you scorn or social stigma, it earned you praise and celebration. I think it probably helped people of that time to maintain a more balanced view between civilian life and military life. Especially among the rank and file (like with vikings for example where many men who wnt out to raid in other countries had completely civilian jobs at home, unless they were exceptionally competent raiders who could sustain their livelyhoods on raiding alone). But in modern times, soldiers are basically forced to hold two completely opposite ideals in their heads at the same time. So it undoubtedly will have some strange and unpredictable effects on their minds.
Military History Visualized: Very true. Narrative sells. I guess that's probably why i'm a bit of a Rommel-fanboy as well. :P
Military History Visualized what is "regular" men?