PDA

View Full Version : Greatest general of the German general staff



astralis
01 Feb 06,, 20:38
well, past trying to give a tongue-twister, this question was prompted by bluesman reminding me that the OKW and the Großer Generalstab aren't quite the same thing :biggrin:

but, as the question states,

whom do you think was the best general of the Großer Generalstab; and to make it more interesting, let's include the personalities within the prussian general staff into this as well. so within the 1808-1919 time period.

lwarmonger
01 Feb 06,, 22:11
Moltke the first.

Bluesman
01 Feb 06,, 22:55
Yep.

Blademaster
02 Feb 06,, 18:52
Tell me about him. Never heard of him.

My opinion on the greatest general was General von Lettow Vorbeck (sp???) where he was never defeated in the campaign of East Africa despite with inferior resources and numbers.

Bluesman
02 Feb 06,, 19:07
Tell me about him. Never heard of him.

My opinion on the greatest general was General von Lettow Vorbeck (sp???) where he was never defeated in the campaign of East Africa despite with inferior resources and numbers.

I had a Marine major recommend a book, called 'The Great War in Africa', and it was EXCELLENT. All about this guy Lettow-Vorbeck, who, if I remember correctly, was a mere Lt. Colonel for most of the war (no offense, OoE), and therefore not REALLY eligible.

But as a leader and a fighting man, BABY, that's a DAM' GOOD PICK. :cool:

As for Moltke the Elder, check out his Wiki entry. Too much to put in a post.

Blademaster
02 Feb 06,, 19:42
I did visit the Wipi Encylopedia and wasn't too impressed by the biography they had on Molte. Perhaps you can point me to somewhere else?

xerxes
26 Jan 07,, 01:46
^^^

I will go with Generaloberst Seeckt .... he rebuilt the new army around the remnant of the old Imperial army after a horrible war in the shadow of the Versailles Treaty

dave lukins
26 Jan 07,, 01:58
Blademaster a quick resume on Moltke...Born 1800,Ist served in the Danish Army before transferring to the Prussian Army in 1822. Ended up as Field Marshal Helmuth Carl Bernard Graf von Moltke....try signing that on your cheques!!

dave lukins
26 Jan 07,, 02:01
I think the best loved by his troops and the best known to his enemies was of course Rommel

xerxes
26 Jan 07,, 02:11
Blademaster a quick resume on Moltke...Born 1800,Ist served in the Danish Army before transferring to the Prussian Army in 1822. Ended up as Field Marshal Helmuth Carl Bernard Graf von Moltke....try signing that on your cheques!!

Also, it should be noted that he also served a German military advisor in the Turkish Army

xerxes
26 Jan 07,, 02:13
I think the best loved by his troops and the best known to his enemies was of course Rommel

now that we are going outside the Chief of General Staff, perhapes it would wise to consider the defacto chief Ludendorff and Colonel Hoffman

dave lukins
26 Jan 07,, 02:19
Also, it should be noted that he also served a German military advisor in the Turkish Army
Yes indeed ,he was adviser to the Sultan. His campaigns include..Denmark 1864..Austria 1866 and France 1870-1

dave lukins
26 Jan 07,, 02:38
now that we are going outside the Chief of General Staff, perhapes it would wise to consider the defacto chief Ludendorff and Colonel Hoffman
Xerxes not to sure about Erich Luderndoff as a great "general" . A very ambitious person ,and he had very strong views on aggession.."peace is only an intermission to war.".Ok. under Hindenburg he destroyed the Russian Army on the Eastern Front in WW1. Not the best but might come near the top of the poll

xerxes
26 Jan 07,, 02:53
^^ well he was the dictator of Germany after the fall of Falkenhayn till the end. Though his military rank never went over that of General der Infanterie - probably because of the lack of either noble blood or else - he ruled Germany through the old field marshal.

But while Falkenhayn was a "western" general the Ludendorff was an "eastern" general, believeing east to be the decisve battleground. Though i will credit him with knocking Russia out of the war, his military succes against the Russians in tannenberg and onward is questionable as we dont know to what extend was hoffman involved. Specially sense after the rise of Ludendorfff as the chief of staff, Hoffman was promoted as chief of staff of the eastern front under the nominal leadership of the Prince of Bavaria. A bit like the Subotai and Batu of the Mongoles in eastern europe.

So Hoffman was the military mind, Hidenburg was the political figure and Ludendorff was the brute energy that drived the team.

dave lukins
26 Jan 07,, 03:03
He actually refused the rank of Field Marshal offered by non other than Herr Hitler in 1935

xerxes
26 Jan 07,, 03:09
really ... wasnt he dead by then????

anyways the rank of Field marshal from hitler doesnt really count .. sense Hitler was giving them away like candies - 12 alone after the fall of france .. and that is not even mentioning that ridicoulus rank he created just for Goring.

For example Milch got a Field marshal's baton in 1940. why was that so??
techincally speaking, the head of air force should not out rank Kietel. But yet Goring outranked him.

I dont take hitler's promotions seriously

smilingassassin
26 Jan 07,, 06:32
Common, without question, Rommel.

Callmecur
26 Jan 07,, 08:38
It would appear, from the history books, that Erwin Rommell was highly respected by his troops and was a true Prussian gentleman.

deadkenny
26 Jan 07,, 13:45
If you're considering the period 1808-1919, then I believe von Scharnhorst deserves consideration. True von Moltke (the elder) achieved great results in the wars of German unification. But then one has to consider what they each had to work with. While von Moltke had a 'fine oil machine' at his disposal, von Scharnhorst was instrumental in re-building the Prussian military after it had been shattered by Napoleon in the 1806/7 campaign, and ensuing punitive peace treaty.

If one is considering up through WWII, then I would certainly consider Guderian to be at the top of the list.

sappersgt
26 Jan 07,, 18:16
It would appear, from the history books, that Erwin Rommell was highly respected by his troops and was a true Prussian gentleman.


IIRC Rommel was a Swabian...;)

xerxes
26 Jan 07,, 18:23
If one is considering up through WWII, then I would certainly consider Guderian to be at the top of the list.

i am not sure that applies, sense the office of general staff in the Weimer Republic was merely a shadow of the Great Prussian General Staff.

xerxes
26 Jan 07,, 18:25
It would appear, from the history books, that Erwin Rommell was highly respected by his troops and was a true Prussian gentleman.

that definition applies more to Runsdent - the only Prussian officer who could charm Hitler

deadkenny
26 Jan 07,, 18:48
i am not sure that applies, sense the office of general staff in the Weimer Republic was merely a shadow of the Great Prussian General Staff.


Not sure what you mean by 'doesn't apply'? :confused:

Guderian was Chief of Staff (OKH) towards the end of WWII, not during the Weimar Republic era. I specifically mentioned continuing consideration beyond the end of the period mentioned originally (1808-1919) because others were bringing up WWII Generals, including those who weren't even staff officers.

xerxes
26 Jan 07,, 20:21
In a sense that the august position of Chief of the Prussian General Staff was dismanteled. Its responsibility be divided into Chief of High Command (later renamed C-in-C of the Army) and Chief of Office Troops (later renamed Army General Staff of OKH). Therefore, the holder of the latter position regardless of their prestige (like someone like Guderian) will never match the greatness and powerfull figures such as Moltke, Falkenhayn, Hindenburg, Schiefflen, Waldersee. Though von Seeckt would be an exception.

As far as your point about Weimar, I consider the entire timeline of 1919-45 to be part of the Weimar Republic but perhapes not of the Weimar Republic era, as the definition might apply only to 1919-33.

The Third Reich, the Nazi regime, all these are de facto titles and not de jure. The German nation's official de jure name was always the German Reich, perhapes later the "Greater" was added. Hitler took power through the process of election. Therefore, the nation offically never changed from election of Hitler onward. IMHO

Trajan
06 Feb 07,, 22:13
General Heinz Guderian is in my opinion the best general (other than Rommel) that the Germans ever had. He became Chief of Staff in the closing stages of the war because Hitler kept firing all the other ones and Guderian just happened to be one of the only really successful Panzer Group commanders on the Russian Front.

I highly recommend two of his books: "Actung! Panzer." and "Panzer Leader", the former being written before the outbreak of WWII in the mid 20's and the latter being written after the second world war and describing all of his campaigns and his experiences (a personal diary you might say).

Without him the eastern front would have collapsed long before it actually did. Not to mention that he was a gentlemen in the extreme and loved by his troops. He in fact ignored two orders from Berlin, the order that allowed officers (at the outset of Barbarrossa) to wait until a separate time to punish soldiers who ignored the Geneva Convention during combat, instead of putting them on trial on the spot, and the infamous "Commissar Order" which he never had delivered to his troops, rather sending it back to Berlin with his comment that it was a "disturbingly idiotic order."

Then lastly, it was thanks to his pressuring the OKW and OKH during the inter-war years to continually promote the armored forces (tanks) as a future arm of the army. Without him the german panzer forces would not have been birthed as early as it was; not to mention he largely constructed the combat doctrine that they fought by. Blitzkrieg, or the german plan of assault, was largely his brain-child.

xerxes
06 Feb 07,, 22:16
^^^ the OKW was pretty much non-existant in inter-war years. It came to existance in '38 after the War Ministry of dissolved.

The concept of Blitzkrieg was perhapes used first by Guderian but the word Blitzkrieg originated from an American journalist covering the Polish campaign. In fact the word Blitzkrieg was only used later on by the Allies attempting to explain their initial failure in war. Therefore, the myth of Blitzkrieg was born as it was some sort of special capability that the German had.

A WWII historian said that it was not the Germans that won the campaign of 1940, but it was the Allies who lost it. Similirly, it was not the Allies who won the later campaign in 43-45, but it was the German who lost it.

Trajan
06 Feb 07,, 23:43
^^^ the OKW was pretty much non-existant in inter-war years. It came to existance in '38 after the War Ministry of dissolved.

You know very well that I was simply reffering to the then-head of the military, the Chief of Staffs if you like.


The concept of Blitzkrieg was used first by Guderian but the word Blitzkrieg originated from an American journalist covering the Polish campaign.

This I know...and the name means little when I simply used one of its titles to describe the method.


In fact the word Blitzkrieg was only used later on by the Allies attempting to explain their initial failure in war. Therefore, the myth of Blitzkrieg was born as it was some sort of special capability that the German had.
The allies came up with this excuse for failure, as it was an excuse, because they were simply being beaten by a newer military doctrine that they had no formal training in facing. Facing defeat is easier when you make it seem like magic.


A WWII historian said that it was not the Germans that won the campaign of 1940, but it was the Allies who lost it. Similirly, it was not the Allies who won the later campaign in 43-45, but it was the German who lost it.
Well all historians are indeed entitled to their opinions and make quite a lot of money from coining phrases such as the one you mention. However things are more complicated than a simple, nor is it true to say that the "Germans didn't win the 1940 campaign, but that the Allies lost it" for if the Germans didn't win then the allies couldn't have lost. The comment is a fallacy and therefore not really a thing to have in a place or used in the basis of comparing german generals.



Not to sound rude...but thats my opinion.

xerxes
06 Feb 07,, 23:47
Well all historians are indeed entitled to their opinions and make quite a lot of money from coining phrases such as the one you mention. However things are more complicated than a simple, nor is it true to say that the "Germans didn't win the 1940 campaign, but that the Allies lost it" for if the Germans didn't win then the allies couldn't have lost. The comment is a fallacy and therefore not really a thing to have in a place or used in the basis of comparing german generals.

Not to sound rude...but thats my opinion.

no problem ... but i really like that coined phrase "Germans didn't win the 1940 campaign, but it was the Allies that lost it" ... as you said the phrase itself is a open-loop circuit, but it does carry some meaning :biggrin:

I recoken that had the maginot line been completed things would have been quite different ... both the outcome of the battle aswell as the war plans of the General Staff itself

deadkenny
08 Feb 07,, 13:38
...
As far as your point about Weimar, I consider the entire timeline of 1919-45 to be part of the Weimar Republic but perhapes not of the Weimar Republic era, as the definition might apply only to 1919-33.

The Third Reich, the Nazi regime, all these are de facto titles and not de jure. The German nation's official de jure name was always the German Reich, perhapes later the "Greater" was added. Hitler took power through the process of election. Therefore, the nation offically never changed from election of Hitler onward. IMHO

I believe it is a bit 'unusual' to consider 1933-1945 to be part of the "Weimar Republic". Regime change does not alway follow the pre-existing 'rules' or 'laws' :rolleyes: but that doesn't justify 'ignoring' them for purposes of historical discussion or analysis. The Third Reich 'era' is no more part of the 'Weimar Republic' era than the Soviet Union was part of the Tsarist Russian Empire Era. I do not believe that the Tsar gave his consent to the communist take over or the execution of himself and his family! :eek:

deadkenny
08 Feb 07,, 13:47
...The concept of Blitzkrieg was perhapes used first by Guderian but the word Blitzkrieg originated from an American journalist covering the Polish campaign. In fact the word Blitzkrieg was only used later on by the Allies attempting to explain their initial failure in war. Therefore, the myth of Blitzkrieg was born as it was some sort of special capability that the German had.

A WWII historian said that it was not the Germans that won the campaign of 1940, but it was the Allies who lost it. Similirly, it was not the Allies who won the later campaign in 43-45, but it was the German who lost it.

Regardless of who coined the phase, or Allied excuses afterwards, the German tactical doctrine was real and was different from that used by the Allies at the time. Whether or not you describe it as a 'capability' or not, it was definitely not a myth. The Allies, the French in particular, were prepared to refight WWI. Their tactics, training, doctrine, command structure etc. were all geared towards that concept. The Germans did something very different and the French were unable to react to it. Let's not forget that the Germans did it to the French twice. After the first phase (cutting off and destroying the forces in Belgium) there was a definite halt to the offensive. The French were able to establish a strong defense line on the Somme, and were still holding the Maginot Line. When the Germans were ready they launched another offensive which, after a few days of hard fighting, was able to breakthrough the French defense line and exploit once again. Again the French were unable to react quickly enough once the initial breakthrough took place. The French simply had serious command and mobility problems that meant that they had no answer to the German 'Blitzkrieg' (or whatever term you prefer to use).

xerxes
08 Feb 07,, 16:03
I believe it is a bit 'unusual' to consider 1933-1945 to be part of the "Weimar Republic". Regime change does not alway follow the pre-existing 'rules' or 'laws' :rolleyes: but that doesn't justify 'ignoring' them for purposes of historical discussion or analysis. The Third Reich 'era' is no more part of the 'Weimar Republic' era than the Soviet Union was part of the Tsarist Russian Empire Era. I do not believe that the Tsar gave his consent to the communist take over or the execution of himself and his family! :eek:

Absolutly not ... i completely disagree ... wrong example ..... the Bolshevics seized power whereas Hitler took power through the due process. The Romanov throne was overthrown and a totally new state was built around in 1917. It doesnt matter if one likes or hates hitler, but the fact remains that in 1933 he was elected chancellor, though perhapes he wanted to overthrow the Weimer Republic in the 20s by his Munich Putch. had that happened I would have agreed with you ...it did not!!!!

xerxes
08 Feb 07,, 16:19
Regardless of who coined the phase, or Allied excuses afterwards, the German tactical doctrine was real and was different from that used by the Allies at the time. Whether or not you describe it as a 'capability' or not, it was definitely not a myth. The Allies, the French in particular, were prepared to refight WWI. Their tactics, training, doctrine, command structure etc. were all geared towards that concept. The Germans did something very different and the French were unable to react to it. Let's not forget that the Germans did it to the French twice. After the first phase (cutting off and destroying the forces in Belgium) there was a definite halt to the offensive. The French were able to establish a strong defense line on the Somme, and were still holding the Maginot Line. When the Germans were ready they launched another offensive which, after a few days of hard fighting, was able to breakthrough the French defense line and exploit once again. Again the French were unable to react quickly enough once the initial breakthrough took place. The French simply had serious command and mobility problems that meant that they had no answer to the German 'Blitzkrieg' (or whatever term you prefer to use).

that is all well and truth ... but as a historian you should know that the concept of breaking through at critical point, double enveloppment and threatning enemy rear is not invented by the Germans .... hence the myth of Blitzkrieg. If you are intrested to know the correct term is Vernichtungsgedanke . That term refers to the traditional German (Prussian) plan of attack used in the Frano-prussian war, Schiefflen plan in 1914, the battle of annahilation of the Polish armies in 1939, the western offensive in 1940 and all the smaller battle of annahilations on the eastern front. These Vernichtungsgedanke traditional German themselves are based on the Napoleonic warfare in a sense that various self-sustained corps will try to flank and threaten enemy rear while a main massive ad hoc detachment dubbed masse de decision would breakthrough. Yes ... the tanks were new, the idea of armored vehicles as spearheads didnot existed before .. samegoes for the direct air support which didnot existed backthen.. but the concept of the traditional German Vernichtungsgedanke is fully based on Napoleonic warfare. Infact I daresay, the Schiefflen plan was very much like the 1805 campaign leading to Austerliz, only of it was re-versed.

Vernichtungsgedanke was the traditional battle plan used throughout 19th centuary, but blitzkrieg was a myth created by both sides trying to magnify German succes. Even during WWI, the Vernichtungsgedanke was used by the Germans though its outermost right wing got bogged down at Marne, followed by the trench war. The belligerants didnot fought trench war, because they thought it was cool, they fought because their initial energy release of 1914 was out of fuel.

omon
08 Feb 07,, 19:05
what do you guys think of martin borman, he wasn't tried at nurenberg, his traces disappear, but for some reason his grave is in moskow, he died in 60s if i recall correctly, some sources say he worked for kgb after ww2.

xerxes
08 Feb 07,, 19:50
what do you guys think of martin borman, he wasn't tried at nurenberg, his traces disappear, but for some reason his grave is in moskow, he died in 60s if i recall correctly, some sources say he worked for kgb after ww2.

regarding Bormann, they only think I can agree with your claims is that he was never found. I never heard that his grave is in Russia nor that he worked for KGB. Most probably he left for Argentina and died there ....

Trajan
08 Feb 07,, 21:57
Xerxes, I must point out one common misconception you seem to hold. Hitler, while some may think so, was not elected. The final tallies of the vote was so close, between a dozen different parties, that the Nazi party simply had the largest majority of the votes (though not enough to get elected). He was placed there at the advice of Franz von Papen.

You see, ultimately, after two Reichstag elections only increased the Nazis' strength in the Reichstag without substantially increasing von Papen's own parliamentary support, he was forced to resign as Chancellor, and was replaced on 2 December 1932 by von Schleicher, who hoped to establish a broad coalition government by gaining the support of both Nazi and Social Democratic trade unionists.

As it became increasingly obvious that von Schleicher would be unsuccessful in his maneuvering to maintain his chancellorship under a parliamentary majority, von Papen worked to undermine von Schleicher. Along with DNVP leader Alfred Hugenberg, von Papen formed an agreement with Hitler under which the Nazi leader would become Chancellor of a coalition government with the Nationalists, and with von Papen serving as Vice Chancellor.

On 23 January 1933, von Schleicher admitted to President von Hindenburg that he had been unable to obtain a majority of the Reichstag, and asked the president to dissolve the Reichstag and grant von Schleicher the power to rule by emergency decree. By this time, the elderly von Hindenburg had become irritated by the von Schleicher cabinet's policies affecting wealthy landowners and industrialists.

Simultaneously, von Papen had been working behind the scenes and used his personal friendship with von Hindenburg to assure the president that he, von Papen, could control Hitler and could thus finally form a government based on the support of the majority of the Reichstag.

That was what the Weimar Republic desired most, a solid government backed by a true majority. The Reichstag had been constantly hamstringed by the fact that few real actions were taken, specially after 1929, to control any of Germany's problems. Hitler was seen as a good chance to rejuvenate the Weimar government.

So, no, he was not elected.

xerxes
08 Feb 07,, 22:21
Regardless, all of these fall within the machinery of Weimar Republic. I dont see how what you said debunks my claim but I do stand corrected that Hitler was no elected but it was his party that formed part of the coalition government. as you said.

all these being said, you cannot compare this to the bolshevic revolution or the German revolution or the iranian revolution or the French revolution that completely uprooted the Ancienne regime. Hitler ascention to power was within the framework of the Reich, regarldess of how many people his thugs bullied. when the old marshal died, equally his presidential power were transfered to the chancellorship. If i remember, papen and Hindenburg agreed that the best way to control Hitler was have in the government rather then outside.

overthrowing government and taking the chancellorship through dishonest ways are too different things IMHO

Stan187
09 Feb 07,, 02:20
The allies came up with this excuse for failure, as it was an excuse, because they were simply being beaten by a newer military doctrine that they had no formal training in facing. Facing defeat is easier when you make it seem like magic.

Indeed. The Germans nearly failed. Those nine panzer divisions (of a total of 10 that Germany had at the time) streaming down the Allied flank nearly got completely cut off from their supply lines and trapped.

deadkenny
09 Feb 07,, 03:31
Absolutly not ... i completely disagree ... wrong example ..... the Bolshevics seized power whereas Hitler took power through the due process. The Romanov throne was overthrown and a totally new state was built around in 1917. It doesnt matter if one likes or hates hitler, but the fact remains that in 1933 he was elected chancellor, though perhapes he wanted to overthrow the Weimer Republic in the 20s by his Munich Putch. had that happened I would have agreed with you ...it did not!!!!

Naturally you are free to persist in your own misconceptions. However, it is standard, in a historical sense, to view the Third Reich as being distinct from the Weimar Republic. In fact, Hitler and the Nazi's repeatedly violated the Weimar constitution in consolidating absolute power. They may have started from positions of power within the former government. But that doesn't change the nature of the fundamental change that they brought about.

omon
09 Feb 07,, 03:40
regarding Bormann, they only think I can agree with your claims is that he was never found. I never heard that his grave is in Russia nor that he worked for KGB. Most probably he left for Argentina and died there ....

his grave is in moskow, that is a fact, i,ll make a screen shot from documentary i got, as his work for kgb, i don't know for shure, the same movie said so, but why would he be buried in russia, 20 years after ww2, if he wasnt, somehow related, to russian authorities? that is a mystery.

deadkenny
09 Feb 07,, 03:43
that is all well and truth ... but as a historian you should know that the concept of breaking through at critical point, double enveloppment and threatning enemy rear is not invented by the Germans .... hence the myth of Blitzkrieg. If you are intrested to know the correct term is Vernichtungsgedanke . That term refers to the traditional German (Prussian) plan of attack used in the Frano-prussian war, Schiefflen plan in 1914, the battle of annahilation of the Polish armies in 1939, the western offensive in 1940 and all the smaller battle of annahilations on the eastern front. These Vernichtungsgedanke traditional German themselves are based on the Napoleonic warfare in a sense that various self-sustained corps will try to flank and threaten enemy rear while a main massive ad hoc detachment dubbed masse de decision would breakthrough. Yes ... the tanks were new, the idea of armored vehicles as spearheads didnot existed before .. samegoes for the direct air support which didnot existed backthen.. but the concept of the traditional German Vernichtungsgedanke is fully based on Napoleonic warfare. Infact I daresay, the Schiefflen plan was very much like the 1805 campaign leading to Austerliz, only of it was re-versed.

Vernichtungsgedanke was the traditional battle plan used throughout 19th centuary, but blitzkrieg was a myth created by both sides trying to magnify German succes. Even during WWI, the Vernichtungsgedanke was used by the Germans though its outermost right wing got bogged down at Marne, followed by the trench war. The belligerants didnot fought trench war, because they thought it was cool, they fought because their initial energy release of 1914 was out of fuel.

Fine, but so called 'Blitzkrieg' was also about HOW the breakthrough was achieved and exploited, not just the operational / strategic objective. As you've admitted yourself, tanks and air support were keys - and these are exactly what was not used in the same way by Germany's opponent's, at least not early in the war. Trench warfare did not come about because of the 'initial release of energy' in 1914, or 'running out of fuel'. It came about because 'trenches' (more accurately field fortifications) enabled the defenders to survive the offensive artillery barrage and teh attacking infantry was unable to breakthrough. When a breakthrough did occur, infantry was unable to exploit it quickly enough as they would quickly outrun their artillery support and defensive reserves, with artillery support, would quickly seal the breach. The difference with the so called 'Blitzkrieg' overcame this by a combination of tanks assisting with the breakthrough and exploitation, and air support 'filling the gap' when artillery support was intially outrun. By keeping the offensive going once the offensive artillery support was outrun, and quicking the pace of the exploitation with the additional mobility of tanks and motorized infantry, the Blitzkrieg method made it much more difficult to 'seal the breach', once it occurred.

deadkenny
09 Feb 07,, 03:47
Indeed. The Germans nearly failed. Those nine panzer divisions (of a total of 10 that Germany had at the time) streaming down the Allied flank nearly got completely cut off from their supply lines and trapped.

It was never really that close to happening, except in the minds of those at HQ (on both sides). The French planned such an attack, but were incapable of moving quickly enough to deal with the rapidly changing situation on the ground. The British actually launched a minor attack, but without any coordination wtih the French it was easily dealt with by the Germans (after causing some concern on the German side initially).

bugs
29 Jul 07,, 18:58
Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb-
biggest results -smaller suport

BudW
29 Jul 07,, 19:50
Toss up between Guderian and Manstien

clackers
15 Nov 07,, 11:30
his grave is in moskow, that is a fact, i,ll make a screen shot from documentary i got, as his work for kgb, i don't know for shure, the same movie said so, but why would he be buried in russia, 20 years after ww2, if he wasnt, somehow related, to russian authorities? that is a mystery.

Construction workers found Bormann's body in Berlin in 1972 ...