# Talk:Heinz Guderian

[Not[ian]]

Recently under infobox 'Allegiance' someone changed the dates for German Empire to (1898-1918), which I thought unremarkable. Soon thereafter someone else changed it back to (1907-1918), which I now see was the long existing prior value. This looked strange to me, because the German Empire existed long before 1907.
Looking at the template docs {{Infobox military person}} gave me no added understanding. But... if the logic is that the dates necessarily reflect the _individual's_ "Years of service", here "1907–1945", then that could make sense. Why are there so many undocumented gotchas 'round here? Shenme (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

As the title indicates, the dates are of Guderian's time of service; from the time he entered the German army as an officer cadet in 1907, to his retirement in 1945. I'm not sure what's unclear about that. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The caption, saying Guderian is on the left, does match the description given with the photo's source. However, the person on the left does not look at all like Guderian; the one on the right looks more like him. Both of these figures seem to be wearing wedding rings on their right hands, which would be unusual (at least by modern American custom). Could the photo have been reversed? (The reversal would have been done at the source site, not by a Wiki editor.)MayerG (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The person on the left is clearly Guderian; compare with the lead photo. The officer on the right does not look like Guderian. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you are right, and my suggestion of a reversed photo is clearly wrong-- Germans do wear wedding rings on the right hand! In the lead photo Guderian doesn't look chubby, which is what threw me off. MayerG (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There is much space allotted to Russel Hart’s belief, that Guderian even supported the 20 July plot. But Hart’s evidence is thin, even dubious.  He claims: “On 18 July, as Guderian himself admitted in his memoirs, his former Luftwaffe liaison officer from Russia, von Barsewisch, who had developed and maintained a close relationship with Guderian, came to see him as an emissary of the conspirators in a final attempt to enlist Guderian’s participation. Barsewisch informed Guderian of the impending attempt on Hitler’s life, even though he did not say precisely when it would occur, as the final decision had not yet been made.” (p. 99) This is based upon Kenneth Macksey’s book Panzer General (1976ff.). According to Macksey their talk was not only about Kluge’s idea of arranging a separate armistice in the West: 

Barsewisch now came to Guderian as the emissary of the conspirators (in response to a request from Major Caesar von Hofacker) in a last effort to persuade Guderian to adopt outright resistance. News of the impending assassination, of which Barsewisch now told him without revealing its date (since the final decision had yet to be taken on the 19th), thoroughly shook Guderian. It was of no avail. Admitting the validity of Barsewisch’s reasoning, after a four-hour tramp and talk in the woods out of earshot, Guderian held firm to his original contention that he could not break his oath and must do his duty as an officer. All mention of assassination at this meeting is excluded from Panzer Leader. Only the subject of the armistice is ingenuously discussed on the lines that if he informed the Führer and the information proved false he would be ‘… doing Feldmarschall Kluge a grave injustice … Should I keep the information to myself I must share the guilt of the evil consequences that were bound to ensue.’ He adds that he did not believe the story and decided to stay silent."
This aspect of the Bomb Plot story, concealed up to now, throws a flickering light on Guderian’s part. In one respect – his omission of the whole truth from Panzer Leader (perhaps from a tortured conscience but as likely from true political reaction) – he emerges at less than his normal standards of behaviour. From another angle he becomes fully implicated in the plot. He knew Hitler was doing awful damage and he did nothing to stop the assassination either by arresting Barsewisch on the spot or reporting the whole matter. Instead he pursued a well-thought out policy adapted to the new circumstances. 
The problem with this is that Macksey does not provide any source for his story, admitting that it is not within Guderian's book and that the conversation was a completely private one between the two men. In his bio Dermot Bradley only notes that Guderian and Brasewisch talked about Kluge’s plan. Besides Guderian’s memoirs Bradley cites a letter by Barsewisch to Guderian’s son of 28 April 1975. See also Smelser/Davies’ discussion of Guderian’s feelings towards the plot. Guderian, whom Goebbels described as “insurpassable in his loyalty to the Führer”, still condemned the plot after the war. In short, this seems to be way too much space for way too much speculation.--Assayer (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Assayer: please feel free to make the necessary changes / shortenings. Nobody owns the article so if there are ideas for improvement, then they can be implemented as needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I made the changes: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have found source which state his quote  klotzen, nicht kleckern,“ by which he meant “Fist, not Fingers as his analogy for the battle strategy. Can anybody tell me where i can use it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agus Damanik (talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC) 

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Unneeded / misplaced citations". Specifically, the Smelser & Davis citation already covers the relevant content. Separately, the part He claimed that the defendants executed for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials were "defenders of Europe" and that six million Germans died during their expulsion from the Eastern territories by the Soviet Union and its allies, while neglecting to mention the Holocaust is original research. Guderian did not write that Guderian claimed... or that he neglected the Holocaust, etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Would it be acceptable to re-add the sentence but without the citations and explicit mention of the Holocaust, and rephrase the transition to "Guderian wrote..."? Asangya (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
What is the proposed sentence? Generally, the addition of this nature would require a secondary source. Otherwise, it would a just a Guderian quote w/o context or analysis. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The sentence I was thinking of originally would read along the lines of: Guderian wrote that the defendants executed for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials were "defenders of Europe" and that six million Germans died during their expulsion from the Eastern territories by the Soviet Union and its allies;.
As for context/analysis, with the placement alongside the Hitler quote and the "supposed Bolshevik menace," I think the meaning should become fairly clear: Guderian created an obviously false historical narrative in the book that plays up the evils of the Soviet Union and in doing so victimizes Germany and whitewashes Hitler's regime and its greater crimes, and the information illustrates that in the way the current paragraph alone doesn't fully do. Although to make it even more explicit, perhaps the sentence could be written this way: Guderian wrote that six million Germans died during their expulsion from the Eastern territories by the Soviet Union and its allies, while also writing that the defendants executed at Nuremberg (for war crimes such as the Holocaust) were "defenders of Europe"; this one is a bit longer, but avoids making any original interpretations of the text while also establishing an explicit Holocaust connection (although I personally don't think it's necessary and the first one can be used, since a person reading an article about a WWII German general will probably know that six million Jews died under the Nazi regime, and could click the "expulsion" link to see that far less Germans died even by the most liberal estimates). Asangya (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
There's still a concern about lack of context. For example, to put the figure of 6 mil German deaths, one would need to discuss why this number is wrong. Please see Wikipedia:No_original research#Synthesis of published material why that would be an issue. I think the existing para is sufficient to discuss Guderian's historical negationism. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The text links to the "Expulsion of Germans" article which clearly shows that Guderian's figure is wrong, though. And I believe that SYNTH only applies to new conclusions not mentioned in either source, whereas the new sentence builds on Smesler's & Davies's point and provides further evidence for it (And I don't think that there are any new conclusions being drawn within the sentence either). Asangya (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but please add it after the statements cited to Smelser & Davis, rather than in the middle of it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Done, thank you. Asangya (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

... the People's Court, set up for the purpose of prosecuting the alleged plotters
That's not what the Wikipedia entry on the Volksgerichtshof (estd. 1933) says.2A02:AA1:101B:5EF1:1498:288C:A1F8:6DF3 (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion you, wikipedians, don't know about Germans. 5.141.195.109 (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)