Talk:Heinz Guderian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

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)

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)

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.

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

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)

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) hommage a toi hanz, tu est au paradis, tu est mort est tu a laissé deriere toi les pd, jamais nous trahirons l'allemgne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.16.211 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

hommage a toi guderian, tu est au paradis, jamais nous trahirons l'allemagne, la fin de la guerre en 1945 ces un jour de deuil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.16.38 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What the hell happened, the article is again nonsense?

I have not visited the article for a while. I navigate to it now, and it's the worthless muck it had been when I first looked at it. The same old primitive, deceitful Guderian-worshiping propaganda. Everything written since Liddle-Hart and Guderian himself spawned there rubbish is once again barred. Sadly This is a rather busy time for me. Therefore I cannot conduct a massive editing of what has become a less than worthless piece of spouting, but the article cannot stay like this. It's a monstrous CRIME. I'll wait a few days for further consideration, but until I can find the time to do some root and branch reediting, the only plausible solution is reverting to an earlier version. say two or three months ago when it was marginally tolerable. Still I must wonder. Who is the morally apocalyptic contributer to always reinsert this garbage, the instance the attention of humanity, is distracted.Soz101 (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahah this guy is my great-great grandfather and I didn't know about him until today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.205.137 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I want to point out that there is a glaring problem in the paragraph which I have appended below. Words or possibly entire sentences and/or phrases are missing so that the paragraph makes no sense. I have noted my comments IN CAPITAL LETTERS for clarity.

SENTENCE 1: After the war Guderian joined the nationalist paramilitary Freikorps as part of commanding staff of Eastern Frontier Guard Service. CONFUSING.

SENTENCE 3: Eventually Guderian joined the Iron Division as its second General Staff officer re-assert military's control over the formation. THIS SENTENCE MAKES NO GRAMMATICAL SENSE NOR DOES IT HAVE A CONTEXT.

SENTENCE 4: The plan had failed as Guderian's personal anti-communism dominated over the orders he received. WHAT PLAN??? THE PLAN IS NEVER EXPLAINED.

SENTENCE 5: Iron Division waged ruthless campaign in Lithuania and pushed into Latvia; traditional German anti-Slavic attitudes however prevented cooperation with Russian and Belarussian forces opposing Bolsheviks.[4] During the division's advance on Riga it committed numerous atrocities as part of its ideological mission to "cleanse and clean", these events are omitted by Guderian in his memoirs.[4] WHEN DID THE IRON DIVISION DO THIS - WHAT TIME PERIOD???

Regards to all 74.68.130.224 (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Early career

... From 1901 to 1907 Guderian attended various military schools and the Deutschescouten (German Scouts)...

---

Since I'm german I can safely say the term 'Deutschescouten' does not exist.

In fact after those "various military schools" (1. April 1901 Cadetcorps in Karlsruhe, later Academy of War in Berlin) he joined the 'Jäger-Bataillon Nr. 10' (just means 'light infantry') in february 1907 as ensign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.26.97 (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Deutschescouten!

Deutschescouten? Deutschescouten. Deutschescouten: https://www.google.com/search?q=Deutschescouten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.50.93.47 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Deutschescouten: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinz_Guderian&diff=prev&oldid=514008377 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.50.93.47 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Deutschescouten"

Please, there is no such thing as "Deutschescouten" (you may have this word from the Val Kilmer movie "Top Secret" where the pseudo-German word for electric fence switch is "Das Fencen Switschen"). In German "scout" means "Pfadfinder" (same word for singular and plural). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.117.47 (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Guderian could not have been a "Pfadfinder" the scouting movement was founded in Germany in 1909. In that year Guderian was 21 years old and a Lieutenant in the Germany Army. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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'

---

Just because one Historian (James Corum )didn't give Guderian the main privilage of the theory it doesn't mean it is true and some body mentioned it in the Encyclopedia ! Guderian was the father who primarly put all the theories together ; build the mock-ups and test the troops in armoered divisions ! and it was mainly and substanitally his efforts to fully build and drove the German Armored forces into this tatcics.

I believe the paragraph of user Dio need to be removed untill it became reality or better would be in a book or article !? Most of the historian Germans and non Germans credit Guderian as the biggest owner of this theory although he was not the first to think about it ! Guderian himself admitted it ! AND he metnioned it in his book Panzer leader that Both J.F.C. Fuller and, B.H. Liddell Hart, have influenced him and participate in it ; other French and Russian military officers have some shares and advocate the theory as well BUT still a fact that Guderian was the first one who completely implemented it and apply it as total theory in operational level.

So unless I heard good answer I will remove that part.

--Hiens (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I will remove that part as it is speculation. and better to be in a Book.

Hines!! Corum's significance lies in his being the first to solidly study the formulation of German doctrine after the WWI. He was not the last. They all discovered that Guderian fantastically inflated his role.These include Williamson Murray in his article in Military Innovation in the Interwar Period, Robert Dinardo and many others. This article cannot ignore the truth in accomodation of your puppy love for Guderian. Do not delete referenced information because it disturbs your preconceptions. Indeed given the obvious and even alarming immaturity evident in your postings, I feel it is essential that you refrain from all editing related to matters you feel the least strongly about. You most certainly must abstain from editing this article. Read it if you must, but don't try to write it. Your Insertions are certain to prove damaging. More constructively you can simply read Corum's book and maybe another book or two. You will definitely benefit from reading the references to your idol in Hitler's Bandit Hunters in Philip W. Blood. You need to be educated for your own good. Soz101 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Soz is correct here, please revert article. You asked for articles and books? I recommend you consult "Blitzkrieg Appropriation: Tracing the Concealed Roots of the Famous Formula." The Canadian Army Journal 10.3 (2007): 56-64. Even more importantly, see the excellent book by professional military historian Azar Gat called British Armour Theory and the Rise of the Panzer Arm: Revising the Revisionists (St Antony/Macmillan, 2000). -Dio free (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Soz & Dio Shalom!! - It was almost all historians and work published after 1950 and 1960 to credit Guderian as the first one who put the theory and implementation of the Blitzkrieg in its full shape! Achtung Panzer was the first book published before the war (in German Language only) to emphasis the technique and benefits of the Tanks specifically and it is technique of war in general , also it is not deniable that other in England or France or Russia may wrote articles or did some exercises on that issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiens (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Guderian Dispute with Hitler

I suggest to add this paragraph within WWII , Heinz Guderian was one among others who criticize Hitler ability to run the war and finally got sacked for his repeated opposition! Although he was not participated in July 20 Plot!

This is a turning point in his life !! We can highlight the disputed points , the differences in opinion he had with Hitlers! separately ! as this is important for all historian and scholars diving into WWII. In General I think we should split WWII paragraph into useful timeline structured paragraph instead on long one. his service during WWII to Service on Western Front and his achievement/work during the French campaign which shows the Blitzkrieg Also separate panorama on his work during the eastern and polish campaign.

I am not suggesting long paragraph but quick panorama with few lines.

I need agreement/back up from other editors to start that paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiens (talk • contribs) 11:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: Allegiance

Should there not be a flag representing West Germany, where he lived and worked for the last part of his life? Or does the 'allegiance' section refer only to his time in uniform? Valetude (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Added FRG flag in "allegiance"

Due to his official advisory capacity in the re-establishment of the Bundeswehr. This is strong evidence of an officially recognised, additional, and final allegiance. Happy to discuss Irondome (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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.

Friedrich Guderian was promoted to general-lieutenant in 1914. It was his last position in the army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.110.204 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht references

Is this section (Heinz_Guderian#Wehrmachtbericht_references) needed in the article? It is citing from the OKW propaganda report, the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. In either case, the section appears to have no informative value.

Compare with Gerd von Rundstedt:

• Mentioned six times in the Wehrmachtbericht (6 and 8 August 1941, 19 September 1941, 11 and 12 October 1941, 10 September 1943)

Or Erich von Manstein, which is a GA article:

• Eight mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht: 11, 12 and 31 October 1941; 19 and 20 May 1942; 2 July 1942; 20 March 1943; 4 August 1943

In the past, I've seen these removed from articles such as in Bach-Zelewski. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Corruption within the Wehrmacht?

I was wondering why there was a link to the Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers article (here written "Corruption within the Wehrmacht") in the see also section. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Because Guderian has a section in that article? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Should have guessed. Yes, fair enough. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heinz Guderian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306224754/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewstr74.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewstr74.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

I undid the restoration of material [2], as it included such over-simplification as:

• During the autumn of 1941, his offensive on Moscow was delayed by orders from Hitler with whom he disagreed sharply. Soon, German troops found themselves delayed by bad roads and mud and then suffering from the winter cold, one of the major factors that led to the failure of Operation Barbarossa.

References

...cited the subject himself. I also removed "This marked the end of his ascendancy" - this is an encyclopedia article, not a Greek tragedy. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman (talk),

That seems to be a significant amount of text to have been removed. Given the reasoning an edit would seem more appropriate than a removal. Surely the noted disagreements with Hitler about new vs backfill of panzer formations bears some inclusion in the entry? Curious if you would be open to a bit more robust discussion on the bulk of text removed.

I didn't see the text referenced related to his ascendancy in your edit or earlier version of the post, could you point out where that is?

Thanks. Squatch347 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Disputes with Hitler

This section is sourced to WP:Primary sources: Guderian and Balk. I'm going to tag it with "Unreliable sources" tag. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section on disputes with Hilter as it was cited to Guderian's memoirs + another Wehrmacht general. I'm preserving the material here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Guderian's memoirs are non RS for these claims". Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Squatch347: Sorry this was first elsewhere on the page. I moved it down here, so that the recent changes are together. If I may quote one historian:

• "German general’s memoirs are one of the major sources fuelling the Wehrmacht myth in the Anglo-America world. This is not to say they are not potentially useful sources, but they absolutely cannot be accepted at face value because, as one reviewer noted, ‘half-truths, lies, omissions, and distortions coexist alongside truth.’ Exploring the Wehrmacht exclusively through these sources will remain a problem until new editions are produced with rigours annotations to the text or, at the very least, introductory essays are added that make readers much more aware of the kind of problems they contain."

It's not that I'm arguing that there were no disputes with Hitler, but Guderian is not the proper source for this. In any case, the material is preserved in the diff, so it can be retrieved if necessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman, I appreciate the quick response. Completely agree with you that we need to be wary of autobiographical descriptions of these events as they are almost certainly biased in favor of the author. That said, for some of this Guderian's account can be supported with independent sources. Certainly, his relief isn't that disputable. Perhaps it would be more informative to append those sections with additional sources and be sure we scrub them for likely bias?

Happy to take that on a bit and post a recommended change if that would help.

Squatch347 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a historical source that is not biased. If we rule out sources on that basis we would't have very much left to go on. While it would be naive to accept accept any source verbatim, confirming through other sources has its pitfalls as well. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No objection from me on either point. Squatch347 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Luck & Rommel

Preserving here by providing this link; the areas that I cut included nn commentary by low-ranking Hans von Luck. I also took out quote by Rommel, which seemed out of place. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

Hahaha, yeah. And remember they did do that more then once. After 1918 and after 1945. However what I'd like to see is a reference for the claim made above with regards to Guderian. The OP doesn't seem to be beacon of objectivity, when it comes to the subject given the wordings he uses. --41.150.96.43 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2015 (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)

You both seem to be talking past each other, but I am going to point out the obvious: user JajaDeineMutter was using sarcasm to imply he/she knows the Poles weren't resettled but exterminated as part of the Nazi plan to exterminate all slavs and Jews. More importantly, Guderian was also aware of the likely fate of the previous inhabitants of the estate Hitler gave him, which makes him at the very least an accomplice of the Nazi regime.The andf (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2018 (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)

~~

the above is the usual scrollable nationalistic BS but Guderian was one of the few Generals to get/expand an estate with Hitler's assistance, joining v Kleist, Keitel and v Leeb. This was all handed through a secret slush fund administered from the Chancellery by Lammers. All Field Marshalls received 4000 RM per month stipends, and Colonel Generals 2000 RM. Many generals during the apogee of Germany's fortunes received RM250,000 gifts from Hitler on their respective birthdays. Note that a Pz IV cost around RM100,000 to build. Guderian's estate -- Deipenhof -- was to be the model of land rewards in the postwar for HItler's generals. Rommel turned down an offer of reward, but Guderian was the acknowledged father of the Panzer force and had an immense role in the victories of 1939 through 41.

To the victor goes the spoils. This does not necessarily "stain" Guderian's record since the entirety of WW2 was an immense land grab of Lebensraum (by both Hitler and Stalin). Heck, even downtrodden Poland got into the act in 1938 with the seizure of Teschen from the even more screwed Czechs. Guderian's family lands were first lost after WW I with the creation/restoration of the Polish Corridor. Not much love lost between the Prussians and the Poles and in 1939-40 the Germans simply decided to settle things "so oder so". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.111.237 (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Oh please. It is no libel to call a Nazi a Nazi The andf (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2018 (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

I always wondered about that, too. What were those committing atrocities against German people thinking, when they did it. Sure they felt justified by the propaganda of their own governments, but then many of those crimes fell in the era before September 1939. 41.151.184.177 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

I've removed the statement: "Guderian's foes considered him a tough but clean adversary" because it's unsourced. And I don't believe it! Manormadman (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of war crimes

This question has been addressed previously here under the sub-title Dispute. The claim that Guderian was a war criminal is in conflict with the official record. This question was asked immediately following the war. The Soviet Union and Polish government accused Guderian of war crimes and demanded he be turned over to them. The U.S. considered these requests and refused to hand him over to the Soviets, stating that their investigation concluded that Guderian had acted in a manner consistent with a professional soldier. That was the legal conclusion to the issue. He was not on trial at the Nuremberg hearings, but he did testify there. To accuse him of an event without showing that he ordered it to happen, when he was many steps removed from the event in terms of command, and as far as we know he had no knowledge of is not justified. Further, to assert that Guderian was a war criminal ends up diluting the term when it is used to describe individuals that actually committed war crimes (ordered or committed the killing of prisoners, ordered or committed the killing of civilians or other helpless individuals). A lot of horrible things happened during and after Second World War, but the term should not be used in this biographical page without better evidence connecting the actions to Guderian. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A section entitled "war crimes" is not a "claim" that he was a war criminal. The section was created simply to provide clarity to the otherwise long and lumpy Controversies section, since it dealt with the issue of war crimes. The content was already all there'. A bit of new content was then added in this edit [3], which appears to be sourced, though I can't comment on the quality of the source. But almost all of the content was already present. Most of it was extended excuse-making stuff about how the army had already moved on when the SS appeared and did Bad Things. Apart perhaps from the new content, none of this involved personal accusations against Guderian. Paul B (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you break that section down to subsections and I felt those were helpful edits. As to war crimes, well certainly atrocities were committed, and the Germans committed a lot of them, but the fact that men that were under the broad reach of his command committed criminal acts in my mind does not justify our attaching the acts to Guderian. William Calley gave the order that resulted in the My Lai massacre, but we do not attach the term "war criminal" to Americal division commander Samuel Koster or to theater commander William Westmoreland, even though the men involved, including Lt Calley, were under their command. That being said, does not a section heading titled "War Crimes" imply to the reader that Guderian was a war criminal? Should German atrocities in Poland be mentioned at all in this article if we cannot find Guderian ordering them? If we could show that he was aware that his men took these actions and he did not discipline them than I think it should be mentioned. Can it be shown that Guderian was aware that his own men, and not the SD or SS who he had no control over, committed these acts and that he sanctioned them? Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a subsection of "Controversies", so the implication was that it was part of "controversies" over war crimes. Of course it could be changes to "allegations of war crimes" or something like that, though I think section titles should kept short. A title like "Murder of Smith" does not, I think, assert that the subject of the article it appears in actually murdered Smith, just that the section is about the murder of Smith, whether the subject was the killer, a suspect, involved in some other way, or the person who investigated it. The real issue is whether the stuff about the statements in his autobiography about the SS is worth including at all. It was not even clear to me whether most of it was supposed to be a summary of what he said or whether it was supposed to be general background. As for the other material, as usual, it is relevant if it has had some significant discussion in sources about Guderian. Paul B (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"German War Crimes in Poland"? Something like that. As to what he had to say in Panzer Leader about control problems, there is a lot of confirmation about that. The German war effort was characterized by the marked distrust of Hitler toward his own officers. The Hitler Youth and SS forces were efforts to create a form that was loyal to Hitler alone. Of the SS formations, the Sicherheitsdienst or internal security force was by far the worst. They were absolutely brutal to the people in the occupied territories, and played a large role in generating the partisan effort that developed in Russia and France. Guderian, or any other officer in the Herr, had no authority over them. Even control over line units of the Waffen-SS was limited. After 2nd SS Panzer Das Reich committed the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane, Rommel was intent on punishing the unit, but Hitler told him directly "That's none of your affair". Though Rommel's son was in the Hitler Youth, Rommel refused him permission to join the Waffen-SS. "It's out of the question" he said, going on to say that if he did he would be forced to do things he would forever regret. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Do note that it's been shown that German generals and commanders were self-serving in their memoirs and accounts, "forgetting" that their own regular troops cooperated with SD death squads, either logistically or sometimes directly (as in, firing the actual bullets), and arguing about the loot taken from their Jewish victims. This is documented and is why, for example, Erich von Mainstein stood trial and was convicted (of course, in the trial "he didn't remember"). The andf (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The point is the citation and passage, with a reference, is there to balance the prior passage referenced from Panzer Leader. The activity cited was committed the the army, not the SS. The citation from IPN is provided. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "war crimes" is the wrong section title. I put the passages back, but retitled it to reflect the real controversy is about his statement made in the autobiography. The specific passage being The oppressive policies the SS enacted were counter to the ideals of the professional German soldier, and led to the rise of a very strong partisan movement which hampered the supply of the military. These acts were the responsibility of the SS and civilian directors, over whom the army had no influence. when in fact that there were instances of his own forces committing the crimes. We then have a balanced section that shows both sides of the controversy. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What you have quoted above is a true statement. The SD was extremely brutal, and the policies that they followed were repulsive to many professional German soldiers, and were argued against by Reichenau among others as he believed they would be counterproductive. In light of the partisan movements that developed in Russia, Yugoslavia, and France it is clear that he was correct. What you seem to be saying is that regular German troops committed atrocities as well. That would be true of most forces involved in the conflict. American forces shot prisoners, used prisoners as shields, burned whole towns to the ground, killing women and children. The Russians? It is common knowledge how they tortured and killed captured German soldiers, and how brutal they were to the people when they "liberated" territories. Do we have a war crimes section for Sir Arthur Harris or Frederick Lindemann for the planning of the Area bombing directive? Curtis Le May for the bombing campaign over Japan? How many women and children perished, burned to death, in these raids? Returning to Guderian, does he make the claim somewhere that regular German troops never took actions that were contrary to the laws of war? If he does not then material on the Pacification operations in German-occupied Poland are better placed in its own article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"What you seem to be saying is that regular German troops committed atrocities as well. That would be true of most forces involved in the conflict." The Wehrmacht actually went way beyond what "is true of most forces". While after the war there was an active (and sadly, largely successful) campaign to rehabilitate the image of the Wehrmacht in the West, something that was needed because of the coming Cold War, the regular troops of the German army were instrumental in the extermination plans of Nazi Germany and took an active participation in it. They were not "professionals" or "bystanders" who could do nothing to stop the evils of the SS, but instead were one of the main tools Nazi Germany used to enact their horrors. The andf (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hart's analysis

Regarding this edit, I think it's an interesting observation and could be placed in the Acting Chief of the General Staff section, as the conclusion to it. However, if it's "almost a verbatim copy of what Hart wrote of Guderian", as the edit summary says, then the content cannot go in like this. It needs to be paraphrased. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be left out. It is a copy of his memoirs that basically says "I didn't think about all those Jews being murdered". That just isn't believable when he surrounded himself with so many anti-semites. The article currently doesn't discuss his vitriolic hatred of the "slavs" which is certainly recorded by pretty much every historian. It is also unbelievable he would shoot his mouth off about the "slavs" at every opportunity and say nothing about the Jews. Szzuk (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It should be left out you are right it is not believable since he was with a lot anti-Semites and he hated the Slavs a lot Jack90s15 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

He was definitely an avowed anti-communist, and he clearly shared the inherent prejudices of the Prussian officer class. However I think it would be hard to make a serious case for antisemitism or antislavism. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I am going to work in some material about antislavism, the quickest I could find is this; "Guderian, presumably blinded by anticommunism and racism, apparently never understood this most fundamental strategic reality of the war in the east" Hart p=69. Szzuk (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I see the point. The text as inserted had "...as the strong national leadership figure he [Guderian] believed Germany needed" while Hart actually says "...national leadership figure he craved". Meaning: Guderian was an opportunist whose goals for advancement & self-promotion aligned with objects of the Nazi regime, and he supported them as the result. Not suitable for inclusion in the present form. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Panzer Leader image

The file does not have a fair-use rationale for this article. I'm of two minds about it; I don't think it's needed in this article, but on the other hand, it's a good illustration of the contents of the associated myth. I would be fine with either removing the image or for someone to add a fair-use rationale to the file page -- and see if it sticks. One of these things need to happen. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The fair use rationale is improper, I've removed it. Szzuk (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Stahel and Epstein in the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht section

Stahel and Epstein's assessment of German generals and the Polish campaign are broad indictments of the Wehrmacht's conduct in op. Barbarossa and the invasion of Poland but doesn't really relate directly to Guderian, it belongs in the myth of the clean Wehrmacht article instead Meeepmep (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest that Epstein be moved to the section on Poland; it looks a bit tacked on in that para. I believe that Stahel should be kept where it is; he writes about the "men in control of Hitler's armies", of which Guderian was one. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree lets do that. Szzuk (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• It is better to discuss rather than edit war. Szzuk (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I still think that most of the last paragraph in the Invasion of Poland and Invasion of France doesn't really tie into the rest of the sections which is on Guderian's command. It's an extremely critical, brief and broad summary on German air power, mobilization and atrocities committed during invasion of Poland, most of which do not directly relate to Guderian. There's already a link to the main article. Meeepmep (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The last sentences of the Invasion of France and Poland sections, consists of direct quotes, commentaries and POVs by contemporary historians, paraphrased by editors. It feels especially out of place, and I think it doesn't exactly conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Meeepmep (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      • It's not "POV" when these are commonly known historical facts. However, the attribution was indeed unnecessary; I removed it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm not denying they happened, I just don't think it should be in this article as it does not directly relate to Guderian. I think it's best not to confuse the importance of these content with it's relevance. Meeepmep (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • The content discusses German generals - Guderian was a general. It discusses mobile warfare in which he may not have been directly involved - but he was indirectly involved in all mobile warfare. Szzuk (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Closing paragraphs in Invasion of Poland + Low Countries sections

I don't think that the closing paragraphs of those two sections necessarily relevant to this article. See Wikipedia:Out of scope. While the rest of the sections detail Guderian's command during the invasions, the closing paragraphs are broad assessments of German mobilization and strategic errors, for example in the Poland one, "During the Polish campaign air support was not prioritized and of the 54 divisions mobilized only 14 were mechanized." and "The Polish campaign proved to be the testing ground for German barbarity in the Soviet Union." In the French one it states "Manstein's plan had fallen into French hands through the Mechelen incident, however, the Germans subsequently changed their plan leaving the French defending the wrong theatre of war. The French had moved most of their troops North leaving the Ardennes barely defended at all. Had the French made a different response the outcome of the invasion could have been very different." and "Craig Luther writes that Hitler and his generals became "intoxicated by their historic victory over their long-standing nemesis". In their hubris they ignored the role accident and chance had played in the victory and came to believe they could easily vanquish the Soviet Union, a country with significantly larger industrial power." Not only is the role of Mechelen incident on French defeat disputed, Guderian was only in command of one corps during the campaigns, the only connection these paragraphs have to him is that he is one of the thousands of "Hitler's generals". These paragraphs aren't helpful in assisting the reader to understand Guderian's role during the campaigns nor are they very good summaries of the campaigns themselves. The actual articles on the Polish and French campaigns do an immensely better job of giving the reader context. I think those two paragraphs do not belong in the article Meeepmep (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You have misunderstood his influence and importance. He had wide ranging influence on tactics, planning and the attacks themselves. Szzuk (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

He certainly was was heavily involved in the development of tank formations and related tactics. However, I doubt that it is possible to make a definitive statement of his overall influence without diving deeply into POV. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Guderian was involved in writing the Manstein plan and planning the French invasion. He said the Ardennes attack was a great idea, until told he'd have to lead it, then he complained bitterly until given a very big force to do so. I will add the detail. Guderian was responsible for the development of those 14 panzer divisions with a well known antipathy and refusal to integrate the luftwaffe. I will add detail to clarify. Szzuk (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my copy edit

@Meeepmep: Hi. You have just reverted a whole raft of my copy edits. They looked unobjectionable to me. I would be grateful if you could tell me what it was about them that you objected to. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Addressed to wrong person. Now resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit queries

Hi Szzuk I am copy editing this for GOCE. Flag up anything you aren't happy with or don't understand. I will post any queries I have here.

• Hi. Thank you for your assistance. Szzuk (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• "the commander of a heavy radio station number 3". This doesn't really make sense to me. Could you elaborate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• The text says "in August 1914 Guderian became commander of Funk Station (heavy radio station) 3 and Nachrichten Offizier (communication officer) of 5. Kavallerie-Division, engaged on the Western Front". I think the information could be recast as Guderian became a commander of a heavy radio station. If this still doesn't make enough sense then it should be deleted because I have no further context for this info. Szzuk (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• "He became a second lieutenant" and "he was promoted to Oberleutnant". You need to standardise on either English or German nomenclature. If German, it should be in italics.

• Lets go with the English, oberlutenant roughly translates as first lieutenant. Szzuk (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• "he was in charge of signal intelligence" This needs to be followed by a 'for ...' as in '... for his battalion', '... for 147th Regiment' or whatever.

• The text says "Guderian was an auxiliary officer in charge of the signal intelligence of AOK 4". I have no idea what AOK4 is, unless a talk page watcher can elaborate this too can be deleted. Szzuk (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. That's what I needed. (AOK = Armeeoberkommando) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

More

• "command of Army transport and motorized tactics in Berlin" This sounds odd: command of Army transport in Berlin sounds very practical; motorised tactics sounds like an OKH staff role. Were these two really combined? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• The text is "Promoted Major on 1 February 1927, he worked at the RWM (Reichswehr Ministerium) until 1 October 1928, when he was detached to the Kraftfahrlehrstab (Motor Transport Instruction Staff) in Berlin to teach." Szzuk (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have fixed the content and timeline. Szzuk (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Next:

• Image caption: "Guderian in Sweden, 1929". Is Gudarian on the left or right? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• He's on the left of the 3 in the pic. Szzuk (talk)

Thanks

And:

• " Despite the imperfect combined-arms tactics, the invasion of Poland was ferocious. The German military killed thousands of civilians." I am struggling to see how the ferocity of the Germans towards Polish civilians fits into the same sentence as the effectiveness of their combined-arms tactics. Am I missing something?

I deleted the fragment. Szzuk (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Operation Barbarossa was a noble "defensive preemptive strike" to prevent a takeover by the "Bolshevik-Jewish menace"." Do we know what it was that he thought Barbarossa would prevent a takeover of?

• I've aligned it a bit more closely to the source. It is basically saying at this date he'd definitely became a national socialist. Szzuk (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• I assume that something about Guderian's dismissal after the Battle of Moscow will be included at some stage?

• I will add something later, I know it isn't in the body, I've already deleted it from the lead twice. Szzuk (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I can see that there are gaps, and that the article is being actively worked on. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Block quotes

Hi Szzuk. It is not a matter of aesthetic preference, but of MoS compliance. MOS:BQ: "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters ...) as a block quotation, indented on both sides."

I've been meaning to paraphrase it. It would look out of place as I've paraphrased all the other long quotes. Szzuk (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Good thinking. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Back to queries

"Guderian wrote in his memoirs that he had been given a Polish estate as a retirement gift. Guderian wrote that he had been given the estate by the Nazi government after the invasion of Poland." If he really wrote both of these things, then it needs presenting differently; if he only wrote one, the other needs removing. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I fixed the inconsistency. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks K.e.coffman. I have done for now. I can see that the page is busy, so feel free to call me back to have another look over once it quietens down. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing full citations

There are full citations missing for Barnett and Healy. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolved [4] -- thanks. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Interwar period

Looking over the chapter Interwar Period I noticed some misrepresentations, mainly because the chapter exclusively relies on Russel Hart’s work. I understand that Guderian’s later biography has come under closer scrutiny, but his activities in the Baltic region is worth a second look.

First some background information: The Grenzschutz Ost was the name for the military units that were to defend the German eastern borders against Polish forces during the Greater Poland uprising (1918–19), Silesian Uprisings and the Polish-Soviet War. Rüdiger von der Goltz had orchestrated a putsch against the government of Karlis Ulmanis. The German military leaders not only hoped that they could change the terms of the Versailles treaty, but they also planned to create a German territory in the East. The soldiers thought that they would stay in the East and receive land to settle. In July 1919 Guderian, e.g., wrote a memorandum supporting the idea of establishing a land bridge between Germany and Russia and personally sought support from the Oberkommando Nord (and received it, he wrote). (Bradley, Generaloberst Heinz Guderian, pp. 127-129) Major Josef Bischoff noted in his memoirs, that his general staff officers, Guderian being one of them, urged him to disobey the orders to retreat on 23 August 1919. So there was much more at stake than just defending Prussia against “the Soviet threat”. “Though presented as a crusade against Bolshevism,” Vejas Liulevicius writes, “the venture’s real attraction lay even more in the possibility of a new departure, a chance for German policy to nullify negotiations under way at Versailles with new victories.” (Liulevicius, War land on the Eastern Front, p. 231). Jukka Rislakki has likened the German plans for the Baltic to Hitler’s later plans. Although Guderian effectively took part in a mutiny, it was a mutiny against the government, and there was no reason to punish him on behalf of the (sympathetic) General Staff. Besides, Guderian had been kept in Bartenstein at the Armeeoberkommando Nord since 12 August 1919 and thus had not been with the division, when it disobeyed orders. (Bradley, 129)

In the article the chronology is mixed up. The Iron Division waged a ruthless campaign in Lithuania and Latvia, nearly taking Riga; refers to the second campaign against Riga in the Fall of 1919. At that time Guderian had already been sent to the Jägerbataillon 10 in Germany. During the first campaign, i.e. before the Iron Division joined Bermondt’s West Russian Volunteer Army in October 1919, the Baltic Landeswehr had taken Riga from the Red Army on 23 May 1919 and killed about 3.000 Latvians. The “rape of Riga” (see Hart), however, is usually associated with the occupation by the Red Army in January 1919. (see Mitchell, 1919. Red Mirage) Nationalist (anti-bolshevist) Estonian and Latvian forces defeated the Landeswehr and later repulsed the Iron Division, when it tried to recapture Riga in November 1919. To illustrate Guderian’s attitude at that time, I may quote from a letter he wrote to his wife in April 1919: "The Latvian’s brutality is beyond description. Such a folk is ripe for destruction. You can have no pity with such beasts.” (Bradley, 119f.)

Hart argues that later in his career Guderian was sort of punished by the General Staff and conceived of his commands as a “demotion”. Given the personal letters quoted by Bradley there is no indication that Guderian thought of his posts in the Reichswehr as “punishments”. In fact, for economic reasons he feared not to be able to stay with the army at all. (Bradley, pp. 136-8) Btw, Guderian also fought against the Reds during the Ruhr uprising. Johannes Hürter notes Guderian’s exceptionally bitter political resentments, who hoped for a dictatorship in 1920. (Hürter, Hitlers Heerführer, 94). It furthermore does not make much sense to speak of a “demotion” from the General staff, because under the provisions of the Versailles treaty the General Staff was dissolved in January 1920.

Hart furthermore argues that Guderian presumed in his memoirs that he was transferred to the Inspectorate of Transport Troops in 1922 as further punishment. Actually, Guderian wrote, that he was “delighted with my new job”. (Guderian, 18) Hart’s further argument is based upon circumstantial evidence and interpretation. Frankly, I consider it implausible, because Hart conflates the three months appointment to a batallion in Munich with Guderian’s new job with the Inspector of Transport Troops in Berlin starting 1 April 1922. The “communication mix up” solely applies to his regimental duty in Munich and not to his transfer to Berlin. There is no indication that Guderian had to be “cajoled” into accepting his new post or that he seriously contemplated to resign from the military. Here Hart does not present refrences to back up his claims. It seems as if Hart is keen on establishing “the greatest irony of Guderian’s military career”, but it is his POV and not supported by other sources. (Macksey, Bradley, Hürter)--Assayer (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Assayer: I shortened the section considerably, removing the details that you questioned; does it make more sense now -- [5]? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I was to revist the article at some point to make use of the bios by Bradley and Hürter, but somehow got caught on the way. So far the abbreviated version makes sense. Some of the information might need to be reincluded to make the article "comprehensively encyclopaedic" by MilHist standards.--Assayer (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)