Talk:Heinz Guderian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

What is the evidence for and against Guderian being influenced by Tukhachevski? I didn't see a mention in Guderian's own writings. Presumably somebody has published a paper or two on the question? Stan 03:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Origin of Name

Does anybody know where his name comes from? It sounds Armenian to me, but that may of course be utterly wrong.

Anybody? Thank you.

--80.228.155.166 19:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges the Armenian origin of his patrilinear ancestry. After the fall of the Rus Empire, Armenians and Greeks largely replaced the roles of East-West Polish-Lithuanian trade previously held by Vikings, and from such Armenian traders in Poland the Guderian name became established in Poland and, after Prussia took its share in the Partitions of Poland, in German society. Also consider the origin of the Polish surname "Ormanowski."

There's a theory (probably not known outside Latvia), that Guderian was an Old Prussian name that meant "Smart John." This seems plausible, as in Latvian (which, along with Lithuanian, was related to Old Prussian) Smart John translates as "Gudrs Janis." Guderian seems like it could easily be a sort of corruption of an Old Prussian name along these lines.

Actually the name "Guderian" is a development from the old german name "Guderjan" (Guter Jan), means something like "Good Jan". Jan later becoming Jon/John, "Smart John" looks plausible. But there is nothing armenian about him or his ancestry. Another Example would be "Roderian" (ndd.) = roter Jan (red Jan) became later Johann. Kenaz9 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guderian's father

IIRC, G's father was surely only a captain, not a general. Check book Panzer leader.

According to his son's autobiography, he was a Premierlieutenant (First Lieutenant) when his son was born.

[edit] The Roots of Blitzkrieg.

James Corum argues that Guderian overstated his role in the creation of Panzer. Hans Von Seeckt and his committees laid the ground work for Guderian

-I agree, having read Corum's work and many others for a dissertation on land innovation in WWII, I have come to the conclusion that much like Liddell Hart, Guderian exaggerated his impact in the development of interwar armor theory. More importantly, the origins of German panzer doctrine lay in the works of Hart and Fuller (among others) and is therefore hardly innovative. Doctrinal innovation cannot be pointed to as the reason for panzer success in the Battle of France. I suggest a reworking of this article to reflect this. Please note, I do not wish to lessen the reputation of Guderian as a commander. Heinz Guderian did play a central role in developing an effective German armor doctrine, he actively participated in the training and creation of panzer forces and personally led the assaults in the West and later, in the East – on some occasions even manning a machine gun to clear out enemy troops.

Sources (will post shortly)

--Dio free 09:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While it is undeniable that Guderian wildly inflated his role in the development of German doctrine, the role of both Fuller, let alone, Liddel Hart should not be exaggerated either. German panzer doctrine bore little resemblence to the two britons rather wooly ideas, which were stronger on facile metaphores than accurate descriptions of what they meant. It embodied a combined-arms approach far more sophisticated than anything available in these two's writings. Note the the German emphasis on having anti-tank guns accompany the armour and join tank battles. An innovation inconceivable to he British. In North Africa the British were forever amazed that whenever they had "put the Gerrmans to flight", the pursuit always seemed to land them in an anti-tank ambush. What luck for the Germans.

Hans von Seeckt had ideas on mobile warfare. His ideas were based on having a small body of troops that were highly mobile(He was trying to create the most effective force he could with 100,000 men.). These ideas coupled with Guderians idea for armor concentration created what one might call the 'Armored Spearhead/Operational Mobility doctrine'

[edit] Dispute

Is it relevant whether the threat to execute POVs was a bluff or not ? The fact is that he made this threat and it's not for us to speculate about his true intentions. --Lysy (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, why does it matter if it was a bluff ? --Lysy (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's worthwhile keeping it in there simply because that was the ruling of the court. That paragraph talks of him not being found guilty at the Nürnberg trials, the decision that it probably was a bluff would have been the sole reason he was not convicted of mistreating POWs. You're right, this article is not meant for discussion of his motives, but in this case it is not a discussion. It was a conclusion made by judges which had a huge impact on his (later) life and reputation. --58.104.33.31 02:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

He also hasn´t executioned these POV´s so just for the announcement, he cannot be judged as a possible war criminal, just like noone can be called a criminal because he said, "i´ll beat you up". Just because the intentions (in the example maybe anger or just a bluff to prevent you from doing sth) aren´t known to anyone else. The fact that he wasn´t found guilty implicts, that he wasn´t guilty of this "possible crime".. maybe because this acting or bluffing was widely accepted also by generals of other countries. If there would be any possible reason, that he was a war criminal, i´m shure that he would also be judged as one.

I totally agree that this sentence is practically useless, it uses weasel words (i have tagged it as such) and pretends Poland is a person. I remember having removed it before to no outcries, but i guess it has been reinstated.

--Jadger 01:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What precisely is the proof that it was indeed a bluff. Would Guderian have refrained from murdering the Polish defenders had they not surrender? I am positive he would not have. His troops certainly murdered a good many Soviet POWs. Then again no court would be found to convict him of that either, as if thattelles us anything given their bias.

[edit] Picture authentic?

Is the color picture Image:Guderian_Wenck_color_002.jpg authentic, or is that from some movie? --John Nagle 18:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks perfectly in order to me; why do you ask? Binabik80 23:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like re-colorated

[edit] More squalid Wehrmacht Worshipping

I deleted the statement that Guderian disliked the Nazis and, lo and behold, considered resigning over their treatment of the jews. Unless some source may be found for these claims. They must never reappear. Guderian's Nazi enthusiasm and antisemitism are well established. this Wehrmachtophiliac myth-making must end. I have also noted that an addition by a certain user:Molobo(another quixotic fighter for the truth it would seem) regarding Guderian's mercenary acceptance of an estate pillaged from its Polish owners, an outrageous bribe according to the Wehrmacht's regulation and secret supplamentry income from Hitler has been contemptebly deleted. This is going too far.

Wikipedia appears to have been colonised by Wehrmacht worshippers and revisionists of the most intractable variety who pollute every article about the Wehrmacht with hagiographies and whitewashings. When will this hideous intellectual contamination be eliminated from its articles and a modicum of truth allowed its place in the sun. This is infuriating. Poor Soz

Would you care to give a source to your claim: "Guderian's Nazi enthusiasm and antisemitism are well established"? Sensemaker 14:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One source that comes to mind is Geoffrey p. Megargee's Inside Hitler's High Command. Guderian's Nazism was appreciated by Göbbels, who described Guderian in his diary as "A shining example of a follower of the fuhrer" (quoted in Norman Goda's article Black Marks) . It is doubtless that after 43 Guderian's Nazi enhusiasm was partly fueled by his indebtedness to Hitler for giving him his new estate in occupied Poland - after the inconvenient Polish owners had been evicted to "parts unknown", an unmistakable bribe, but it predates that date.


It appears to me, that a lot of Poles have "accepted" estates pillaged from their German owners. What do you say about that? --217.85.119.143 16:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I do have some opinions regarding the matter of the post-war expulsion of ethnic Germans from East-European countries. However, as I cannot for the life of me find how the matter is relevant to Heinz Gudeian, I feel bound not to respond, and thus not be a party to launching an irrelevant debate. Soz

They have been resettled by the Communist state which did not ask Polish citizens for their opinion, the "pilliging" was accepted on the Potsdam Agreement. I think that the Poles in 1945 would prefer to stay in places where they lived for centuries. And by the way I don't think the land and property "pillaged" from the Germans did compansate for the Polish citizens killed and Polish property destroyed during WWII. Mieciu K 19:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I assume the former owners of the estate Guderian had gotten simply have been resettled, too. No big whoop, huh.--JaJaDeineMutter 16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
May I ask on what informationa are you basing your assumption that these people were "just" ressettled? Mieciu K 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Uhh... I just wanted to ask you the same thing.--JaJaDeineMutter 14:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not assuming anything and I was the first one to ask. So would you be kind enough and answer my question? Mieciu K 17:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

please Mieciu K and anon, put your comments in chronological order, the newest coming at the bottom of the page, editing inside another user's edit can make it confusing as to who said what (I have moved them for you here). And let's just leave that question alone, this is about Heinz Guderian, not about the illegal expulsions of both Germans and Poles, as well as other ethnic groups following WWII. Also, I would like to point out that you had not answered that person's question, but rather tried to deflect the blame and direct attention towards something else rather than admit your nation did something wrong, as Ghandi said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Also, the Potsdam agreement did not cede the territories to Poland, but gave them administration over them, the USSR eventually "gave" it to Poland, that is, still controlling Eastern Germany, they ceded the land for the East German government. demanding for compensation makes this all a vicious revanchist circle, all people suffered, not just Poles. demanding "compensation" for the Polish losses only fuels more bitterness between the two people. What about German losses? who will compensate them? your reasoning is exactly what caused WWII. Also, whoever Poor Soz is, I would like to point out that your hero/idol/martyr user:Molobo has been banned for a year for repeated and continuous vandalism, personal attacks, edit warring and not contributing anything useful to wikipedia.

--Jadger 22:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replyed, "accepted"? since when the communist regime asked for anyone's acceptence? There wasn't an option of refusal. I don't think that Generaloberst Heinz Guderian was forced to take the estate in pre-war Poland.
I didn't request any new compensations, I just said that in comparison to the lives and property that perished the "compansation" was a very bad deal.
The "disputed territories" after the 1990 Polish-German agreement are no longer disputed by any country.
My reasoning is what caused WWII? The World War II article lists a different cause.
What about German losses? Well ask the German goverment, they are the legal succesor of the III Reich, the country that started WWII, I don't think that anybody questions that fact.
"my hero/idol/martyr user:Molobo" where have I directly or indirectly written that? I do not approve of one's behaviour if that person breaks the rules of wikipedia. I hope that you are assuming good faith and judging me on the basis of my edits and not on the basis of me being a part of an ethnic group. Mieciu K 15:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


  • key words: "I don't think" AKA: pure conjecture. you cannot seriously claim that no Poles accepted the homes of better off Germans after they had been expelled. you make it sound like the Communist army stood guard outside the front door of every house in historical eastern Germany to make sure that the person continued to live there.
  • you did not request any compensation, but you said the compensation wasn't enough, implying that you want their to be more compensation. to use another example, say you went to the grocery store and bought something worth $5. you hand the cashier $2 and the cashier tells you "it's not enough", the cashier does not mean "leave with the merchandise anyways, I was just telling you that you should have given me more money". "a very bad deal"? Hitler did not go up to the President of Poland and say "hey buddy, if you let me kill a couple million of your people, I'll pay you back later", it was not a deal of any kind, both nations suffered, and the nation that sided with the victors got to take their turn picking over what was left of the carcass of the other.
  • countries are not the only things to dispute this "disputed territory", people will as well, as you will quickly find out on wikipedia if you stay a while. this petty nationalist racist squabbling can be seen in the huge dispute on Jogaila's talk page.
  • as for "what about German losses", that was a rhetorical question, and you obviously did not understand the meaning of the question. as for Germany starting WWII, it was multiple factors that started the war, not just one nation acting outside of any contact with the rest of the world. Germany was blamed for WWI because they were the losers, and that is what helped precipitate WWII. the start of WWII was not the result of one factor, but multiple ones, not least of which is the revanchism and the Dolchstosslegende that I was referring to.
  • to your last point, I specifically named poor soz who was the first editor in this discussion. I had said: Also, whoever Poor Soz is, I would like to point out that your hero/idol/martyr user:Molobo has been banned for a year for repeated and continuous vandalism, personal attacks, edit warring and not contributing anything useful to wikipedia.

you seem to have missed my points in my previous post, so I will reiterate it. I would like to point out that you had not answered that person's question, but rather tried to deflect the blame and direct attention towards something else rather than admit your nation did something wrong, as Ghandi said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

--Jadger 11:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The anons comment: "It appears to me, that a lot of Poles have "accepted" .... " My answer: Since when did the Communist regime ask for anyone's acceptance = Nobody asked them (the Polish refugees) for their opinion (or acceptance), they were just resetlled and dropped there. Were they supposed to live in front of their new houses in shacks in the winter as a sign of moral protest. Protesting in the stalinist times under the suppervision of the NKVD and their eager Polish comrades from the KBW and MBP? All property was soon to belong to the state (when the reall Communism was supposed to arrive) so the local authorities were not interested much in legal issues.
  • How do you value a persons life for me it is pricless? Just like 5000 mln USD for destroying the Mona Lisa would not be enough. Taht is why I think of the compansation from Germany only in moral terms but not as a finanial deal, but you should not disscuss the topic of the teritoriall changes after WWII without mentioning the losses suffered by the countries involved as these two subjects are linked.
  • I have been around wikipedia for almost two years now, and there are people who dispute everything, which does not make those subjects "diputed". Law not supported by force is not worth anything. Force without law is lawlessnes. In this case it was winner take all with a support by international law.
  • Judging from the tone of that reply I took the "poor soz" part as a personal attack against me, but It now seems it was just a personal attack against some other guy you do not agree with. My bad.
  • My nation did something wrong? It's the XXI century and we are still in the nation vs nation buissnes? I have German friends and I don't remmember making them "admit to something wrong that their nations did" since I belive that every individual should be held responsible only for his own actions. If you want somone to blame for the teritorial changes after WWII blame the participatns of Teheran and The Postdam conferences, the United Nations, The allies and the German leaders who signed an unconditional surrender, even if it is easier to blame the Poles. The Poles who were settled despite the Propaganda were no longer wanted or tolerated in the new USSR territories, and were simply packed into trains and dropped of at the "newly aquired Polish territories" which according to an international agreement were supposed to be compansation for the property they left in the east. On the other hand mr Guderian new property was legitimized only by the Law of the III Reich and recognized only by it's allies. Mr Guderian was perfectly aware of that because a) he was an educted man b) he was a well of man he had a roof over his family's heads and was in no financial emergency c) he had access to channels of information unavailabe to an avarage often illitarate (or half illitarate) polish refugee who had exactly no idea about law. d) no harm would have happend to Mr Guderian If he Politly refused, in the worst case scenario he would loose much of Hitler's favour and maybe some finacial or non-financial benifits, that's it. Since I lived for over 4 years in India you do not have to teach me the benifits of Ahimsa, since I already know them very well. Mieciu K 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It (being the expulsions and territorial loss) was not supported by international law, the Potsdam agreement was not a piece of law, it was a series of recommendations, it had no weight whatsoever in legal situations. hence, why the "recovered territories" were originally called German eastern territories under foreign administration until after they were formally annexed in 1948, when only West Germany continued to call it that.

a)Guderian was an educated man, but it does not mean who knew everything about his situation.

b) so your telling me just because he already was wealthy, that he did want to be more wealthy? makes no sense. and how do you know he wasn't in trouble financially? do you have access to his financial statements? somethings can be covered up, many people don't like to discuss their financial situation, why don't you walk down the street and ask everyone you meet how much money they have in the bank? see your reaction then.

c) so? perhaps he believed his commander, he was in the army, one should have confidence in and trust their commanders, if someone you trust (and who has no criminal record) gave you something, would you ask them if they stole it? every time you open a present this christmas, ask the person who gave it to you whether they stole it or not, how do you think they will think of you then?

Your statements are pure conjecture, can you find a reliable source that back up your assumptions? then maybe they could be added to the article.

--Jadger 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

..."For me and for my party, it is clear, that what happened after 1945 was the effect of the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany. The effect of a criminal war started by Hitler. You cannot question that.
Nobody in the right state of mind in Germany calls for revision of the borders or for the recompense for the property left in Poland by the expelled..." Ruprecht Polenz from the CDU, chairman of the commission of foreign affairs of the Bundestag. statement for Gazeta Wyborcza 13.12.2006 page 11.

I don't see members of the German goverment questioning the legality of expulsioning Germans "from Poland" (not from the territories under Polish jurisdiction). The territorial chances were as legal as the Nuremberg trials - based on the agreements between allies and international recognition.

a) he could without effort aquire the the neccessary information (friends/comrades from the army/neighbours/house servants) would the local Police not answer his questions ?, as for the legal issues, ignorantia iuris nocet "one cannot use lack of knowledge about legal issues as an argument of defence" (because if one could everybody would say "I didn't know").

b) being wealthy does not entitle to breaking the law. Have you seen or heard of a general favoured by Hitler who was poor? I haven't.

c) I don't think a general who recived a formal pre-nazi military education, trusted a Corporal (Herr Hitler) who was supposed to be living of a modest state-paid wage (according to the propaganda). An when I get a present worth well over 100 000 USD at current prices (I don't imagine "an estate" worth less) I'm going to find out where it came from no matter who gave it to me.

Reliable sources to support what? That herr Guderian accepted an estate in "former Poland, current III Reich" while it's legal status was unknown and the wherabouts of it's former owners unknown? Even If he had accepted an estate in Germany, confiscated by the III Reich and the former owners (German citizens but not necessarilly German nationals) "disapeared" with the help of Nazi security forces I still think it would leave a big stain on his C.V. So it's not Poland or Poles who are in the centre of attention here, it is Herr Guderian who accepted property of dubious legal status and whose former owners have disappeared. Mieciu K 16:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guderian's independence

"Ironically this apparently mythical insubordination is still cited by his admirers as proof of his independence of spirit before Hitler." I agree with what is said in this sentence, however, I am a bit unhappy with it. It gives the impression that Guderian wasn't an independent spirit at all which I think is unfair. It seems that he on several occasions spoke his mind even when under tremendous pressure not to do so and sometimes interpreted orders creatively.

The fact remains that Guderian's first dismissal owed to a conflict he had with Kluge rather than any defiance of Hitler. As for Guderian's indomitablity before superiors. Guderian was indeed celebrated for being almost violently opinionated in his relations with many superiors, but his relations with Hitler were far less contentious then he and ohers would have us believe. Soon after he returned to active duty he recieved an estate in occupied Poland in what the Nazis called the Warthegau valued at over 1,000,000DM. His relations with Hitler were thereafter charachterised by acquiesence which only ended after this estate was overrun by the Red Army, whereupon Guderian abruptly reverted to his former rebelious self.

May I suggest you sign what you write. I sometimes forget myself. According to Guderians memoirs, he had had his house bombed when he was offered a new home and having a family, was in no position to say no (though I cannot help but think that he could have asked for something less grand or for something that wasn't stolen). He does not seems more or less critical to his superiours before or after this. When you write "his relations with Hitler were far less contentious then (sic!) he and other would have us believe" I wonder if you have really read his memoirs. He certainly does not seem to try to create the impression of being contentious with Hitler than he was. On the contrary he emphasizes that he did not disobey orders in December 1941 and that he never participated in a plot to reduce Hitler to a figurehead but actively discouraged those that contacted him (though he did not turn them in). If he is trying to create an impression at all, it is of someone who spoke his mind but acted loyally. Emphasizing the fact that you saw through Hitler's incompetence and yet stayed loyal to him seems quite counter-opportunistic in 1952 (when the book was published). Sensemaker 10:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed read Guderian's memoirs, and unless the translator was overly enterprising (I only read the English translation), than I must conclude that he was a stylistically excellent writer. This does not change the fact that he did not write truthfully. Once again I can only direct doubters to Norman Goda's article "Black Marks". Guderian's claim that it was only after his house was bombed, rather than before, that Hitler offered him an estate gratis is quite simply a lie both obvious and revealing, for it proves that Guderian was well aware that he was in the wrong when he accepted this offer. I should also refer you to Geoffrey p. McGargee's "Inside Hitler's High Command" where it is indicated that Guderian rabidly supported Hiler's "Nibelungian", "fight to the bitter end", so-called strategy, until the poor soul lost his ill-gotten estate. A coincidence pehaps. I doubt it very much. Either way the man aside from being a typical nationalistic bigot and Nazi enthusiast also succambed to purely mecenarry impulses.

  1. you said: "Guderian's claim that it was only after his house was bombed, rather than before, that Hitler offered him an estate gratis is quite simply a lie both obvious and revealing, for it proves that Guderian was well aware that he was in the wrong when he accepted this offer." that is non-sequitur (does not follow). His memoir was written after WWII, so he is trying to make reasons/excuses for what he did, it does not imply he knew it was wrong at the time. he accepted the house, yes that is proven, but what cannot be proven is that at the time he knew it had previously been the property of expelled Poles.
  2. you said: "Either way the man aside from being a typical nationalistic bigot and Nazi enthusiast also succambed to purely mecenarry impulses." Wow, since when did slander/libel become acceptable in an encyclopedia?
again, please sign your comments
--Jadger 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that Gudeian knew that the estate he was gunning for was the home of a Polish family who would be booted out upon his obtainment of it. In a subsequent conversation about the matter with Manstein, reported by Stahlberg, he dismayed Manstein, himself no paragon of virtue, by matter-of-factly reporting that the Polish previous ocupants of his new estate were evicted to make room for him and he had neither knowledge of their subsequent fate nor the least desire to find out. He certainly knew it was wrong of him to accept such extravagant dotations at a time that ordinary Germans had trouble enough just getting by, even though he thought nothing of pillaging subhuman Poles. He and all recipients of such "honours", as they were cynically called by Hitler, also knew that they were accepting out and out bribes. It was no coincidence that such grants were meant to be secret, though in practice they rarely were, still the odd naive blabber mouth commoner could find his or her way to a concentration camp if they talked about these matters too loudly, charged with spreading allied propaganda and undermining the national community's morale. My comment on Guderian's character was placed in the talk page, not the article itself. It thus vilotes no demand to observe encyclopidic dispassion. Soz

To comment on unsigned's latest remarks: I agree that Guderian seems to have a gift for writing in a brief matter-of-factly style. In his memoirs he claims that the Leader had mentioned that he had created a fund for people that had won the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves mostly consisting of real estate and that Guderian was qualified for this. Later when Guderians' house was bombed, he was given a concrete offer of a new house. I believe that he wrote something like "I was in no position to refuse". He does not seem feel any need to justify himself at greater length than in this part of a sentence.
When you write: "Either way the man aside from being a typical nationalistic bigot and Nazi enthusiast also succambed to purely mecenarry impulses." I find it does not make sense to me. A nationalist is a person who loves his country and no other. A mercenary is a person who is willing to serve any country as long as he gets payed properly. (Maybe you mean something differently with "mercenary" but this is what we Europeans think of when we hear the word. We have much historical experience of mercenaries.) It is contradictory to claim he was both. I can certainly agree with Guderian being a nationalistic bigot. In his book he makes a relatively big deal about Germans suffering from injustices (especially ill-treated officers) but hardly mentions the much more prevalent and much worse German atrocities against other people. That's national bigotry in a nut-shell to me. If you by calling him a mercenary mean that he was very much a professional soldier, I can agree. For instance he considers it his right and duty to speak truthfully to his commanders, but is less than happy to have to do so in front of others. -Sensemaker
you said: "It is well known that Gudeian knew that the estate he was gunning for was the home of a Polish family who would be booted out upon his obtainment of it." prove it can you please cite sources that say so? or else it is pure conjecture, and assumptions.
you also said: "My comment on Guderian's character was placed in the talk page, not the article itself. It thus vilotes no demand to observe encyclopidic objectivity." You must be kidding? just because it is a discussion page does not mean you can libel someone. this is not a place to put forth rumours. Seriously? how do your comments qualify as any different than any other user saying the same about you (which would result in a NPA warning or ban).
you said: "He and all recipients of such "honours", as they were cynically called by Hitler, also knew that they were accepting out and out bribes." and what was he being bribed for? a bribe is a payment for someone to do something they would not ordinarily do for you. Guderian was doing his job, leading armies, and for doing a good job he was rewarded. but then again, I guess you are against yourself getting a christmas bonus or a payraise of any kind at your job aren't you?

Once again I am left to refer you to Norman Goda's article: "Black Marks" where all manner of proof is available and where a far more sophisticated definition of bribe than the obtuse one to which you have resolved to limit yourself is offered. Read it than we may discuss the matter again if you still have qualms. I would add only that Guderian was not an executive in a private business owned by Hitler but, in theory, a servant of the German people. The official code of the German army explicitly anathematised all gifts that might make the receiving officer beholden to the giver in a way that will affect his discharge of his duties, classifying them as bribes. By this definition, an acceptance of an estate from Hitler was very much a bribe.

Sensemaker said: "I can certainly agree with Guderian being a nationalistic bigot. In his book he makes a relatively big deal about Germans suffering from injustices (especially ill-treated officers) but hardly mentions the much more prevalent and much worse German atrocities against other people. That's national bigotry in a nut-shell to me." actually, I would more think that would not be national bigotry but illuminating the atrocities of others. The Holocaust etc. was well known already, but the rapes and murders and crimes committed by the Allies and Russians in particular had been covered up. Tell me, what would be the point of his mentioning war crimes that had already been well studied and which he could not add more new information about to the reader, whereas with the atrocities against Germans he could tell people about something they had no idea had happened.
Well, for one thing it might enlighten me as to what the perpetrators of these crimes were thinking when they did the crimes, what their rationales and state of mind were. I would find that very interesting. I read of Milgram's famous experiment with great interest. -Sensemaker
If he were to have written about what everyone else already knows about (Holocaust etc.) he would have been preaching to the choir so to say.
If he was writing on the subject of allied war crimes, it would have made sense to limit himself to the task at hand while adding briefly in the foreword that did know that German war crimes were much worse but the full story needed to be told and now he was telling the part that hadn't been told yet. However, that is not what he did. He wrote his memoirs with a strong emphasis on his part in the war. When your people have done a lot of bad things and you just mention that briefly while you make a big fuss of the relatively (very, very relatively) minor bad things that have happened to your people, you will come across as a person who thinks that a crime against a Russian is much smaller than a crime against German. I cannot recall Guderian making any comment to the effect that he knew German war crimes to be much worse than anything else in the war. -Sensemaker
Sensemaker said: "If you by calling him a mercenary mean that he was very much a professional soldier, I can agree. For instance he considers it his right and duty to speak truthfully to his commanders, but is less than happy to have to do so in front of others." In no way is a professional soldier a mercenary. A professional soldier makes a living out of defending his country, whereas a mercenary fights for the highest bidder. As for not criticizing his commander in public, of course he did not do it, NO ONE should do that. the last thing you need in a chain of command is a lack of faith in the competence in the command higher than you. If your commander made a mistake, you may take him off to the side after the engagement and talk to him about the weak points in his leadership, but you never question a commander in front of the men who are entrusting their lives to him.
--Jadger 01:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

do not edit inside my edits, it make it entirely confusing and may make people think I say what you do, instead argue point by point by using the * at the start of your paragraphs to make a numbered list.

--Jadger 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler forbidding the Kluge-Guderian duel

The text said: "Guderian's own view on the matter was that he had been victimised by Kluge and at some point so abused Kluge with accusations related to his dismissal that he provoked Kluge into challenging him to a duel, which Hitler fortunately forbade." I don't think this was fortunate. Most of the victimised Europe certainly wouldn't mind if German generals killed each other. It was fortunate from some points of view, unfortunate from others. It was however, natural that Hitler forbade the duel. Even Hitler realised that it won't do to have your generals kill each other during a war. In his memoirs Guderian writes that Kluge must have realised that there was no way Hitler was going to allow this. Therefore I have changed "fortunately" to "naturally". -Sensemaker

Any loss of life is unfortunate. just because he was fighting for his nation that was opposed to yours does not mean that his death would have been better than his survival. Not all people who fought for Germany in WWII were Nazis, you seem to have been deluded this fact. Many of the people who fought for Germany were not fighting for the Nazi ubermenschen, they were fighting for the survival of their family and their nation. that is like claiming that all US soldiers agree with the current situation in Iraq, or that all the soldiers of the Red army supported the murder of 100 million people that Stalin ordered. I do agree with the current change.
--Jadger 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"Any loss of life is unfortunate." That's POV. As the unsigned response below indicates, there are lots of philosophical views that disagree. Epstein's Mother 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that I think it would be a good thing for humanity as a whole if von Kluge and Guderian shot each other should not be interpreted as me saying they "deserve" to die in an ethical sense or even claiming that they were particularly bad people. I am a utilitarianist so I believe that the rule for what is right is to cause the greatest happinest to the greatest number of people. Therefore it can sometimes be justified to kill even totally innocent people in some rare cases. (I'm certainly not saying von Kluge and Guderian were in any sense innocent, I'm giving a completely hypothetical example.) If von Kluge and Guderian had shot each other and been replaced by less competent generals, the war would have ended quicker, resulting in a shorter war with fewer casualties. Thus the loss of two human lives would be offset by a great many other lives spared. To give another example, if I could travel back in time I would kill Hitler and Stalin as infants, or even better, made sure they never existed at all. Hitler and Stalin would be innocent as infants, but killing them would have served the greater good. To leave the completely hypothetical reasoning, I believe that Speer admitted that his competent management of the Third Reichs economy had prolonged the war (but only if the alternative was an incomptent Hitler stoogie, Speer said that any competent organizer could have done as good a job as he did). He thus admitted that he was the indirect cause of a great many casualties. This is not the same as admitting that he was evil. However it does amount to admitting that it might have been better for humanity as a whole if he had died early or had never been born. It would be interesting to ask a similar question to Guderian. Herr Guderian, I can change history so that you and von Kluge killed each other in 1942. I would shorten his life by two years and your life by twelve, but I would also shorten the war, saving many lives including many of your precious East Prussians. Do you think I should do it?
The discussion is becoming increasingly philosophical and Star Trek-like and currently has little to do with Guderian. If you have disapprove of my utilitarianism please make comments about this on my page.
Concerning the word mercenary I do agree that a professional soldier is not necessarily a mercenary (though all mercenaries I have read about are professional soldiers), I was just trying to understand how unsigned guy was using the word and what he meant by it. Incidentally all mercenaries do not sell themselves to the highest bidder. There are plenty of mercenaries in Iraq and I imagine most of them would not work for Al-Quaida even if they could pay better than the US. -Sensemaker

or they could have been replaced by better commanders, like Von Manstein for instance, your point is moot one cannot predict the future so one cannot assume that worse commanders would have replaced them. one could even claim that it is better they remained as tehy were both "yes men" which allowed Corporal Hitler to command the forces, thus enabling the allies to win quicker.

To leave the completely hypothetical reasoning, I believe that Speer admitted that his competent management of the Third Reichs economy had prolonged the war (but only if the alternative was an incomptent Hitler stoogie, Speer said that any competent organizer could have done as good a job as he did). He thus admitted that he was the indirect cause of a great many casualties. or he could have saved many people, allowing more people to flee from the Red army that was raping and pillaging everything in their path, or it allowed them to build more aircraft and flak guns to stop the allies from firebombing Dresden where huge amounts of refugees were killed, imagine if the allies had of been able to use more aircraft, it would have been worse.Herr Guderian, I can change history so that you and von Kluge killed each other in 1942. I would shorten his life by two years and your life by twelve, but I would also shorten the war, saving many lives including many of your precious East Prussians. Do you think I should do it? I also answered this point above also.

they aren't necessarily mercenaries in Iraq, as they aren't being sent out to kill people, rather to protect targets in the rear areas, they are not on the front lines as a mercenary would be, although they are very similar I would agree, hence why they are called civilian contractors

P.S. please sign your remarks with ~~~~ as it automatically signs your name and provides a link to your userpage.

--Jadger 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected FairUse rationale Violations

Article contains 3 copyright images, all of which have FairUse tag. This is not possible. The two most problematic images are;

  • Heinz Guderian official.jpg by Frentz
  • Guderian Wenck color 002.jpg by Frentz

Both are by Frentz and not "Hoffmann" as is claimed. The 2nd image is likely edited and a montage from photo taken by Frentz in June 1944 eg.series. As Frentz they are both copyright Ullstein Bild Deutschland. No valid FairUse rationale currently exists for either image. I do not believe either qualifies for a FairUse rationale because Germans_and_Soviets.jpg‎ is included under PolandGov FairUse rationale currently. Use of copyrighted images to illustrate an object (Guderian) when an image which is free or has a more favorable copyright status already exists is not permitted under FairUse.

All WW2 images from nazi regime are copyright and PD/"copyright unknown" status is not acceptable. 99.9% of color images from Hitler regime are Frentz. Legal action against wikipedia over copyrighted Frentz images has been threatened before resulting in all problem images being removed from wikipedia.[1]

Unless a suitable rationale, tag etc arises I will begin to list the 2 Frentz images for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogtheforgetfulcat (talk • contribs)