Talk:Heinz Guderian
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | Heinz Guderian has been listed as one of theWarfare good articles under thegood article criteria. If you can improve it further,please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you canreassess it. Review: October 25, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theHeinz Guderian article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives:1Auto-archiving period:6 months  |
| This level-5 vital article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact fromHeinz Guderian appeared on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theDid you know column on 6 December 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
[Not[ian]]
Recently under infobox 'Allegiance' someone changed the dates for German Empire to(1898-1918), which I thought unremarkable. Soon thereafter someone else changed it back to(1907-1918), which I now see was the long existing prior value.This looked strange to me, because the German Empire existed long before 1907.
Looking at the template docs{{Infobox military person}} gave me no added understanding. But... if the logic is that the dates necessarily reflect the _individual's_ "Years of service", here "1907–1945", then that could make sense. Why are there so many undocumented gotchas 'round here?Shenme (talk)03:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The caption, saying Guderian is on the left, does match the description given with the photo's source. However, the person on the left does not look at all like Guderian; the one on the right looks more like him. Both of these figures seem to be wearing wedding rings on their right hands, which would be unusual (at least by modern American custom). Could the photo have been reversed? (The reversal would have been done at the source site, not by a Wiki editor.)MayerG (talk)08:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is much space allotted to Russel Hart’s belief, that Guderian even supported the 20 July plot. But Hart’s evidence is thin, even dubious. He claims: “On 18 July, as Guderian himself admitted in his memoirs, his former Luftwaffe liaison officer from Russia, von Barsewisch, who had developed and maintained a close relationship with Guderian, came to see him as an emissary of the conspirators in a final attempt to enlist Guderian’s participation. Barsewisch informed Guderian of the impending attempt on Hitler’s life, even though he did not say precisely when it would occur, as the final decision had not yet been made.” (p. 99) This is based upon Kenneth Macksey’s bookPanzer General (1976ff.). According to Macksey their talk was not only about Kluge’s idea of arranging a separate armistice in the West:
Barsewisch now came to Guderian as the emissary of the conspirators (in response to a request from Major Caesar von Hofacker) in a last effort to persuade Guderian to adopt outright resistance. News of the impending assassination, of which Barsewisch now told him without revealing its date (since the final decision had yet to be taken on the 19th), thoroughly shook Guderian. It was of no avail. Admitting the validity of Barsewisch’s reasoning, after a four-hour tramp and talk in the woods out of earshot, Guderian held firm to his original contention that he could not break his oath and must do his duty as an officer. All mention of assassination at this meeting is excluded fromPanzer Leader. Only the subject of the armistice is ingenuously discussed on the lines that if he informed the Führer and the information proved false he would be ‘… doing Feldmarschall Kluge a grave injustice … Should I keep the information to myself I must share the guilt of the evil consequences that were bound to ensue.’ He adds that he did not believe the story and decided to stay silent."
This aspect of the Bomb Plot story, concealed up to now, throws a flickering light on Guderian’s part. In one respect – his omission of the whole truth from Panzer Leader (perhaps from a tortured conscience but as likely from true political reaction) – he emerges at less than his normal standards of behaviour. From another angle he becomes fully implicated in the plot. He knew Hitler was doing awful damage and he did nothing to stop the assassination either by arresting Barsewisch on the spot or reporting the whole matter. Instead he pursued a well-thought out policy adapted to the new circumstances.
— Kenneth Macksey,Guderian, Panzer General (1976), p. 184
The problem with this is that Macksey does not provide any source for his story, admitting that it is not within Guderian's book and that the conversation was a completely private one between the two men. In his bio Dermot Bradley only notes that Guderian and Brasewisch talked about Kluge’s plan. Besides Guderian’s memoirs Bradley cites a letter by Barsewisch to Guderian’s son of 28 April 1975. See also Smelser/Davies’ discussion of Guderian’s feelings towards the plot. Guderian, whom Goebbels described as “insurpassable in his loyalty to the Führer”, still condemned the plot after the war. In short, this seems to be way too much space for way too much speculation.--Assayer (talk)17:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have found source which state his quote klotzen, nicht kleckern,“ by which he meant “Fist, not Fingers as his analogy for the battle strategy. Can anybody tell me where i can use it?— Precedingunsigned comment added byAgus Damanik (talk •contribs)12:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Preserving here by providingthis link; my rationale was: "Unneeded / misplaced citations". Specifically, the Smelser & Davis citation already covers the relevant content. Separately, the partHe claimed that the defendants executed for war crimes at theNuremberg trials were "defenders of Europe"[1] and that six million Germans died during theirexpulsion from the Eastern territories by theSoviet Union and its allies, while neglecting to mentionthe Holocaust[2] is original research. Guderian did not write thatGuderian claimed... or that heneglected the Holocaust, etc. --K.e.coffman (talk)00:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
... the People's Court, set up for the purpose of prosecuting the alleged plotters
That's not what the Wikipedia entry on the Volksgerichtshof (estd. 1933) says.2A02:AA1:101B:5EF1:1498:288C:A1F8:6DF3 (talk)16:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you, wikipedians, don't know about Germans.5.141.195.109 (talk)04:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
