Manstein as a chief of the army?

What happen if the Hitler replace Walter von Brauchitsch with Erich von Manstein as the chief of army ?

 

Manstein would not have lasted long because he would have shown a higher level of intelligence over Hitler. He may not have had any influence over Hitler and Hitler would have (as he eventually did) gotten tired of listening to Manstein's constant requests for strategic withdrawals that he would have sacked him eventually. In reality, when Hitler did sack Manstein, he made that comment that the Eastern Front did not need gifted strategists but generals who could motivate the men to do their duty and stand their ground.

 

How about Heinz Guderian ?

 

Guderian was very outspoken and both Hitler and the Army did not like him very much. Unfortunately, the only individual who would survive would be one that would not contradict Hitler. Another Keitel per se. Would not do very much for the army nor Germany. Now, if Hitler would stay out of the military affairs, Manstein would have been a good choice. A better choice in my opinion would have been Ewald von Kleist. He was better at higher level of commands and with his implementation of policies promoting good throught the conquered lands, the number of partisan attacks could have been minimized.

 

The problem is Hitler wanted yes men and that's what he got, very few would stand up to Hitler and those who did were sacked. The other problem is Hitler won his pre-war gambles and was doing well in the early war years making it rather hard for some one to stand up and point out a fact.

 

Hmm, Guderian was chief of the army after Zeitzler, fom July 21st 1944 to March 28th 1945.

Quite frankly there was no practical benefit for having a man of Guderian's stature on that post, because the situation was what it was and no miracles were forthcoming, and whatever Guderian said or thought was countermanded on the spot by Hitler. A barber or a mailman on that post would be as efficient.

 

If Manstein had been appointed he would have to have full independence from Hitler, and if that could be achieved then German forces would have most probably suceeded in the USSR, but as we know Der Fuhrer did not like and appreciate independent thinking Generals.

 

Define succeed.....

 

Well, first we should see how Manstein gets the command, and of what.

Germany had one supreme commander-in-chief, the Führer, and that was it. The command structure followed by the Blomberg-Fritsch purge in 1938 may seen very clear and in order. The Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (High Command of the Armed Forces) was suppossed to co-ordinate all three services' (Navy, Army and Air Force) operations. In reality, it had a commander, field marshal Keitel, and a the chief-of-staff, Albert Jodl, who didn't have the nerve nor the will to face Hitler. So, it was the bohemian corporal who took decisions.

The Oberkommando des Heeres (Army High Command) was subordinated to the OKW, and it only had one commander: field marshal Von Brauchitsch, who was responsible not so much for the planning of operations, but to face the Führer. The growing differences between him and Hitler by the end of December 1941, and the fact that he suffered a heart attack, led the first to sack him and take the post himself. That made Hitler the supreme commander and the commander of the Army.

The chiefs-of-staff of the OKH (Halder, Zeitzler, Guderian), since the Brauchitsch purge and regardless of their skills, started facing Hitler instead of planning operations (as they actually did in the Polish and French campaigns).

So, I don't see how Manstein, in any of such high posts, could have actually affected the result of the war in the east. He most probably would have been sacked after a short while because of constant confrontation with Hitler, due to his honesty, clearness of mind and a certain Prussian general arrogance (hated by the Austrian corporal, of course).

Now, if Hitler would have agreed to create a military structure in the east similar to the Supreme Command Von Rundstedt had in the West and Kesselring in the Mediterranean, certainly, the Germans would have had fought a much more effective war. Manstein would have shortened the front, implemented defence in depth and launched more effective counter-attacks. However, I think that not only it was impossible for Hitler to change his mind (his Lebensraum vision and the direct handling of military power), but also that we're over-estimating Manstein's talents and the actual capabilities of the German armed forces.

He was for sure Germany's best strategist, but he was a very Prussian general: implacable and with little regard for logistics or long-term planning. In 1943, after the Stalingrad débâcle, he wouldn't have had neither the sufficient reserves nor the infraestructure to rapidly deploy and re-deploy them along a huge front (no matter how short he could have done it), facing endless and succesive Soviet offensives. In the end, he might have caused terrible losses to the Red Army (numerous Kharkovs) in a tactical victory after another, but the Wehrmacht couldn't take that kind of constant bleeding for long, specially after Stalingrad.

I don't think it would have made a difference, in the end.

 

I see you're in great shape, Fried, your vacations had a great effect

I'd like to add that you are giving v.Manstein a bit too much credit, as he tended to melt somewhat when confronted by Hitler, travelling to Rastenburg with one opinion and coming back with another. I guess too much of the :fuhrerwein: did that to him.

 

Yes, Miguel, you're right. He wasn't that much of a lion. But he was too honest, if we compare him to other German generals. Even Guderian commented that he wouldn't last long, since he was too sincere with the Führer.

I was checking Sir Ian Kershaw's Hitler, 1938-1945, and he mentions several incidents between both. An outspoken letter of Manstein to Hitler in which he stated that, some of the causes for the war's negative course was 'the way we're being commanded', a couple meetings where he dared to contradict Hitler in public or even a fancy reunion of Hitler and many of his generals, in which Manstein interrupted Hitler's speech and re-afirmed loyalty (he felt that Hitler's speech questioned the generals' loyalty)...

But in the end, we know there wasn't any single one who dared to stand against him. Perhaps general Beck, who was the only damn general that I recall who had ethics and dignity enough to step aside, refusing to take part in Hitler's crap.

 

In the end it would'nt matter if Manstein was head of the OKW, he still had to deal with Hitler, enough said.

 

What happen if Manstein is a fuhrer replacing Hitler ?

 

This would really depend in what year?? If you are referring to 1943 or later battles like Stalingrad and Kursk have already accured... ( depending on your timeframe ) the best of the best of what Germany had would have been lost.

The same ending would result, but maybe it migh have taken little longer.

 

And how would Manstein have had replaced Hitler? 20th July 1944?

Hey! Today is 20th July!

 

The writing on the war there war crimes I don't think Manstine would want the job.

 

Nah, the majority of the Generals considered themselves soldiers and only that. Politics was something they wanted to keep apart from the army which is the major reason given as to why they kept fighting under Hiter, their oath sworn to Hitler could not be broken.

Manstein would never have become fuhrer. The only one whose name came up as a candidate was Rommel and only as a temporary posting until the war was ended.