Feldgrau.net

SALUT!

I am presently reading the memoirs of Heinz Guderian. A truly awe-inspiring text that only intensifies a great sense of admiration and respect for the German Armed Forces. One recurring theme in the text that I have noticed is the impression the author gives the reader that pretty much the whole OKH was time and again opposed to Guderian's ideas. There is even a sense that there is a personal vendetta against the man. In particular, the anecdotes regarding interaction between Guderian and Von Kluge are pretty venomous.
I was wondering to what extent other readers felt this was fair and accurate, and to what extent the author is overstating things to try and pass the buck so to speak, ie vindicate himself from any responsbility for Germany;s tragic defeat.

Einsamer Wolf

Well Von Kluge once challenged Guderian to a Duel with Hitler as his Second.

So i don't think there is any over statement there.

I know Guderian and von Kluge did not get along. But the prior gives the impression that the rest of the OKH hardbiored similar dislike for him. Guderian obviously has an incentive to overstate things, to absolve him of responsiblity for his nation's failure to win the war. Ie, is this fair and objective to characterize the rest of his peers this way, or is it just passing the buck, so to speak?

EW

Am also reading and enjoying Panzer Leader.
In 1942, for services rendered, Hitler gave Guderian a grant for the purchase of an estate. After recovering from illness Guderian and his wife settled at Deipenhof. Where is this located (area was given as Hohensalza/Inowroclaw) and what is its Polish name today?

There is another issue here besides blame for Germany's defeat, that is the question of the extent to which Guderian was opposed by the established interests of the German higher command during the formative years of his theories and the early years of the war. Indeed, I would suggest that blame for Germany's defeat is not, in fact, the central theme of Guderian's book.

I would submit that the central theme of Guderian's memoirs could fairly be summarized thusly:

I am a genius who invented the blitzkrieg and brought it to realization against opposition at every turn from the hide-bound traditionalists in the High Command, which makes the eventual triumph of the blitzkrieg technique so much the more remarkable an accomplishment of mine.

I exagerate somewhat, but not by much.

It is now pretty clear that this view was, essentially, egoism on Guderian's part, egoism indulged in the historical literature by that other great self-promoter Liddel-Hart. Not that Guderian was not a military genius, but he neither single-handledly invented the "blitzkrieg method" of panzer warfare nor was he particularly opposed by the German hierarchy.

For an excellent modern scholarly view of this, see "The Roots of Blitzkrieg" by Jame Corum. For a truly outstanding examination of the First World War stormtroop tactics background to the sort of thinking that (with the addition of panzers) became "blitzkrieg", see "Stormtroop Tactics" by Bruce Gudmundsson.

Unfortunately no memoir or autobiography is likely to be objective. Most generals are going to naturally tout their own accomplishments.

Guderian may not have single handedly invented the BLITZKRIEG but if there had been more leaders like him (& they were allowed to actually have some free reign in running the war, instead of it being run by the Lance Corporal & military ignoramus Hitler), things may have turned out a little different for the German army, in many of the key battles EG; Kursk.
Guderian should be remembered as being a great leader of men & one of the fathers of the Panzerwaffe & tank warfare in general.

Craig Soward wrote:Guderian may not have single handedly invented the BLITZKRIEG but if there had been more leaders like him ... things may have turned out a little different ...

Quite so. So thank God there weren't.

Craig Soward wrote:Guderian should be remembered as being a great leader of men & one of the fathers of the Panzerwaffe & tank warfare in general.

Well... one of the fathers of German armoured warfare certainly, and a highly effective military leader. But why this persistent romanticization of German military leaders? This is quite a strong theme in places like this forum.

Paul,

Not really romanticising German leaders, just I guess interested in how things may have turned out, had things been done a bit differently, in regards to OKW & how the war was conducted; EG Hitler's ridiculous stand & fight till the last man & bullet orders which seemed common place throughout the war & which cost the German army a huge toll, in both men & materiel.

We, in theWest (The victors) have all been told & taught one version of events, it is just nice to be able to see things from the other perspective too (as there are always two sides to every story).

Cheers,

Craig.

PaulJ wrote:There is another issue here besides blame for Germany's defeat, that is the question of the extent to which Guderian was opposed by the established interests of the German higher command during the formative years of his theories and the early years of the war. Indeed, I would suggest that blame for Germany's defeat is not, in fact, the central theme of Guderian's book.

I would submit that the central theme of Guderian's memoirs could fairly be summarized thusly:

I am a genius who invented the blitzkrieg and brought it to realization against opposition at every turn from the hide-bound traditionalists in the High Command, which makes the eventual triumph of the blitzkrieg technique so much the more remarkable an accomplishment of mine.

I exagerate somewhat, but not by much.

It is now pretty clear that this view was, essentially, egoism on Guderian's part, egoism indulged in the historical literature by that other great self-promoter Liddel-Hart. Not that Guderian was not a military genius, but he neither single-handledly invented the "blitzkrieg method" of panzer warfare nor was he particularly opposed by the German hierarchy.

For an excellent modern scholarly view of this, see "The Roots of Blitzkrieg" by Jame Corum. For a truly outstanding examination of the First World War stormtroop tactics background to the sort of thinking that (with the addition of panzers) became "blitzkrieg", see "Stormtroop Tactics" by Bruce Gudmundsson.

If there is one thing that Guderian did not say, it is that he inventred the theory of Blitzkrieg. In spite of that, you will continuously read statements that he did say so. Strangely enough, the same individuals will say that he overstated the influence of Liddel Hart. There is a contradiction there. He cannot have invented the theory and be influenced by others. Even the nitpicking on that point has no merit as Guderian could scarcely exactly remember what he read from whom and when and what influence it had 20-30 years later when he wrote his memoirs.From the only 50 pages he devotes on the period of his life before 1939, one could get the impression that Guderian considered that his wartime service dwarfed all the rest. He would be probably very surprised about the amount of attention that is given on the lesser important part of his life.
The truth is that Guderian was the driving force behind the application of offensive armoured warfare in Germany,most importantly on the battlefield. That is what leading german panzer officers state and they would know. The resistance of more conservative officers certainly existed as is ackowledged by Manstein who did not agree with Guderians criticism of the general staff but at the same time recognizes Guderians important role and the resistance he faced.
i have great problems with individuals that pretend to refute myths that actually do not really exist, even if they are scholars.

LUFC wrote:Am also reading and enjoying Panzer Leader.
In 1942, for services rendered, Hitler gave Guderian a grant for the purchase of an estate. After recovering from illness Guderian and his wife settled at Deipenhof. Where is this located (area was given as Hohensalza/Inowroclaw) and what is its Polish name today?

All these years later, I've found it - it's Głębokie, two towns east of Lake Goplo (Goplosee). http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msa=0& ... 1485a85b4e. Right on the 1914 border.

Even today, you still have these useless revisionists trying to refute on internetforums that Guderian invented the theory of offensive armored warfare. Mentioning the minor detail that he never pretended this never stops them.
It even goes so far as denying the man any contribution on the theoretical side which is unjust, incorrect and without any merit as Guderian would have been pleased with his role concerning the practical application, particularly on the battlefield.

Craig Soward wrote:Guderian may not have single handedly invented the BLITZKRIEG but if there had been more leaders like him (& they were allowed to actually have some free reign in running the war, instead of it being run by the Lance Corporal & military ignoramus Hitler), things may have turned out a little different for the German army, in many of the key battles EG; Kursk. ....

May have but it would probably not have changed things much. Then there's the little matter of giving the devil his due. Some of Hitler's decisions especially his early war ones turned out quite well for the Germans. The decisions he made as head of state were the ones that ruined Germany not those that dealt with tactics.

julian wrote:Even today, you still have these useless revisionists trying to refute on internetforums that Guderian invented the theory of offensive armored warfare. Mentioning the minor detail that he never pretended this never stops them. ....

They are hardly revisionist then are they, nor are they useless. Here's a hint it really doesnn't matter whether or not he started the myth or someone else did the myth exists and needs to be refuted.

It will be difficult to anybody that will say that Guderian invented the theory of armored warfare.
So there is no myth to be refuted and trying to put out that Guderian overstated his own role on the theoretical side is not even close to the truth.

julian wrote:It will be difficult to anybody that will say that Guderian invented the theory of armored warfare.

Yet I have seen it stated on a number of forums by a number of posters.

So there is no myth to be refuted

Your opinion does not appear to correlate with reality.

and trying to put out that Guderian overstated his own role on the theoretical side is not even close to the truth.

Isn't it? I'm not an expert but depending on just what your are referring to I've seen what look like valid arguments to that effect. So it appears to me you are not correct here either. By the way I'm not saying he did just that I've seen arguments to that effect which list his writings as sources.