dgaad
Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001 From: Hockeytown Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IMJennifer [B] Without taking issue with Toumas' tactical assessment, I need point out that among the German generals, Guderian was one of the more successful in re-casting his wartime role in post-war writings. For those who read German, the proceedings of a conference sponsored by the Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt on the German Army in the Second World War, [I]Die Wehrmacht: Mythos und Realität[/I], R.D. Müller and H.-E. Volkmann, eds. will prove enlightening. As I said earlier, there is a tendency in the memoirs of German generals to claim they could have saved Germany had it not been for the interference of Hitler and the OKW. Unfortunately, this is not born out by a now readily available body of documentary evidence. BTW -- Mogami, I really like your definition of Grognard! :) [/B][/QUOTE] IMJ : without reading through all the posts on this board, I have to take issue with this post. It is all too typical that whenever people use Guderian as a source other people jump in and say basically what you have just said here : that Guderian is a liar. This is a gross oversimplification. The discussion which you were responding to was discussing a tactical arrangement that happened to be a source of debate between Guderian and Hitler and some of the General Staff. This debate is well documented in other sources, among them the transcripts of the OKW conferences. The source that you quote, Jennifer, talks about Guderian "re-casting" himself as a non-Nazi. This recasting is also well known, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the tactical arrangements for AGC in 1944, and it is further disingenuous to make vague suggestions about Guderians political truthfulness when the discussion is centered on a tactical issue that really isn't in dispute in the primary sources. You may be attempting to highlight the larger issue of the Generals attempting to evade political and tactical responsibility for both the criminality of the Nazi regime, and its subsequent defeat, and this of course would be a good thing. :) The latter debate is one that will never be resolved; I think it would be useful if historians as a group could say; that probably every General had something political to cover up, most did cover it up; that Hitler did in fact have some good strategic ideas that went against the grain of military orthodoxy; that Hitler did in fact have some tactical and strategic ideas that not only went against the grain of military orthodoxy but which also accellerated the process of defeat; and that the bottom line is that Germany lost, that this loss was a credit to all humanity, but the "responsibility" for Germany's defeat is shared by everyone who had any power in Germany at the time to the degree they had it, more or less.
_____________________________
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
|