Who was the best general of World War II? The host of “Nazi Megastructures” reveals the secret to ABC

–In your book you insist on looking at the war from a new perspective

The traditional way of evoking World War II was from one of two perspectives: either from above, grand strategy, or from below, the infantrymen, the tanks, and the fighting itself. But actually there are three levels: strategic, tactical and operational. The problem is that in the West only the first two have been covered. Traditionally, we have tried to reveal what Winston Churchill had in mind, what Adolf Hitler was up to, or what the generals’ plans were. It was also told what happened in the private soldier’s everyday life. But in return, the economy or the way different nations are approaching the conflict were not addressed.

–How did each country approach the war?

The way the Western Allies approached the war had little to do with that of Japan or Nazi Germany. Both due to access to resources and the previous geopolitical location of these nations. I add this operational level back into the World War II narrative because it also brings together the tactical and the strategic. This creates a new picture of the conflict, a panoramic vision.

An example. Nazi Germany had few resources. It lacked oil and its access to the sea, a narrow strip in the Baltic Sea, was blocked in September 1939. By November 1941, when it had been defeated in the Battle of Britain and launched Operation Barbarossa, all was lost. To win, he would have had to conquer the resources of Europe and the Soviet Union. The data tells us a lot. In June 1941 he had only one major enemy: Great Britain. Six months later, however, there were two more: the United States and the Soviet Union. This shows that he could not win the conflict. I didn’t have any numbers for it.

–At the operational level, Germany’s flexibility is repeatedly praised…

German generals are often put on a pedestal because of their great tactical flexibility and their ability to form and mobilize battle groups with ease. But this is a virtue, but also a sign of their weakness: since they did not have large resources to organize, it was relatively easy for them. The Western Allies, for their part, had to structure a huge fleet of vehicles, a lot of artillery, millions of men, warships… People always talk about the slowness of the Allies, but in the end we misanalyze the facts. It took them longer because it was more difficult for them.

– And in the case of the Allied Nations?

Britain always took material struggle very seriously. In the first part of the war they invested a lot of resources into winning the Battle of Britain because they saw it – rightly in my opinion – as the decisive battle of the conflict. They have put all their effort into it in many areas. One example is that they invented the magnetron, a small radar used on ships and planes that the Germans knew nothing about.

–Which general best combined the operational, strategic and tactical levels?

It’s a very difficult question. There were extraordinary generals who combined these three levels and added that of humanity. For me this feature is key. In Russia, for example, I would give you Konstantin Rokossovsky, who was not as brutal as the famous Georgi Zhukov. In the United States, Patton did very well operationally. And Montgomery, also on the British side. In fact, history has misjudged it. It is true that he did not excel at a tactical level, but at an operational level he was a wonder. Also Bill Simpson of the Ninth Army; Bradley; Collins; Field Marshal Slim… The Japanese are not usually put on a pedestal, and that’s normal, because their tactics were quite timid and mediocre; They couldn’t surprise. Having reached the height of their conquests, everything was a retreat for them.

–Who was Rokossovski?

Yes, he was a fascinating character. He belonged to the Polish nobility and spent several years in prison for this. When war broke out with Finland, he accepted his role in the new regime. He was one of the most brilliant military leaders of the Second World War. The best maneuvers in the Battle of Kursk are due to him. And he was the one who decided the course of action in Operation Bagration; and against what Stalin thought. He had courage, morals, bravery and moral correctness. He knew how to combine the enemy’s forces, weaknesses and strengths… He pushed the buttons that needed to be pushed.

–You have forgotten the Germans who, like Erwin Rommel, are always in the swimming pools…

Rommel was brilliant at the division level, but in war there are many types of generals. At the lower levels, you may be a great officer and overall a terrible leader. As a frontline commander he developed spectacular tactics in France, but when given command in northern France he was terrible at the operational level; He did not know how to integrate the ground armies well into the “air force”. He recovered during the Normandy landings, but he wasn’t the great genius they sold us.

–¿Y a Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein?

They were inflated. Guderian fought well in western France, but he did not fight well in the Soviet Union.

–Montgomery’s case is strange. The atrocities he experienced in World War I made him a very cautious general.

Historians haven’t been kind to his figure, even though he’s been racking up points lately. It is difficult to judge a general’s career as something static. Many things happened during the six years of war. And the truth is that he made more good decisions than bad ones. He understood the capabilities of the human body as well as the soldier’s vulnerability to new weapons. This was combined with his operational vision. He knew that an army of conscripts, people who didn’t want to be there, had its limits. It is often said that he was not brilliant on a tactical level, and I agree, but what is forgotten is that the Allies did not need generals who were outstanding in that sense due to the large amount of resources at their disposal . On the contrary, he valued human life, which was not the case in the USSR. But I insist: he was a great organizer. No one criticized his approach to D-Day.

–But his big coup against Germany, Operation Market Garden, was an absolute disaster…

Yes, that’s an interesting question. When this operation was proposed, everyone was anxious to end the war as quickly as possible and devote themselves to the Japanese front. For this purpose he wanted to use the Allied airborne army stationed in Great Britain. Although he failed, the generals shared with him the idea that a movement must be attempted that would deal the final blow to Germany and that the attack should be led by these men. In the end, his personality took its toll. He was judged negatively because of his paranoia and his arrogance… This has greatly affected the view we have of his abilities. We should judge him not by that, but by his qualities as a general.

-The last. They often put forward somewhat controversial theories. Which of these causes the most problems for traditional historians?

The idea that the Germans weren’t as good as they say. And I keep thinking about it. An example is that the French campaign, its great victory, was largely due to the failure of the French government. Another reason is that the Luftwaffe did not perform well in the Battle of Britain or that Germany did not come close to winning the Atlantic conflict. And also my maxim that the effects of the Eastern Front were much smaller than expected. The data is what it is: 45% of the Third Reich’s military budget was spent on aircraft. And 80% of that was destined for the Western Front. Ultimately, my maxim is to look at things from a different perspective.

–He is also accused of being very Anglophile…

Well, Britain did better than Germany, not least because it won the war. The list of Nazi mistakes was long. First, Hitler constantly interfered in military decisions. Secondly, despite already lacking the resources in 1941, he refused to reach an agreement and end the war and decided to continue fighting under the manic and paranoid idea of ​​the Millennial Reich. For them it was all or nothing, a black and white vision. And they paid for it.