Thoughts of Historians on German Generals:....Responce to Critics.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Christos, what books have you read by the German Generals? Have you read any? Before you condemn the German Generals as Liars read "Panzer Leader" by Guderian or "Panzer Battles" by Von Mellenthin are good works to start with (I'm still waiting for the Memoirs of Gotthard Heinrici BTW) but they give an interesting insight into this subject. You are sweeping in broad strokes here about a whole officer corps. It is of course well known that Von Mansteins book "lost victories" was written from a certain point of view but then most biographies and autobiographies.

The German General Staff was a brilliant group of Generals in terms of ability, leaving morals and scruples to one side for a moment. The campaigns of 1939, 1940 and 1941 prove this and I think you'll agree that I dont need to post a reference to this, because well we know they won them. The Third Reich came very close to conquering Europe and the defeat of France stands as a text book campaign. Also Von Manstein's campaign around Kharkov in Spring 1943 was brilliant, not only for his plan but also testimony to the German Army in general.

You've been critical of the ENTIRE Russian General Staff in another thread Christos and now you are calling the entire german General Staff Liars. Just what do you want? Everyone to agree with you??? I believe that they were, to a dgree, self-serving but I wont go along with the Liars tag. Sorry mate.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally Posted by Christos

No...I am not mixing the work of generals with historians......Mr Weinberg is a GERMAN, and uses GERMAN material......case proven

Umm I really do think thats a quick comment from somebody that has only his own thoughts on the matter to go on....can you come up with anything to prove your assertions as I can?.....if so...bring it on!

Just because he is German doesnt mean he knows more. Ask most Russians what they think about a certain Mr. Victor Suvorov and his views and see what they say.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally Posted by Christos

Oh no...you are not just going to pas all this off as 'emotive"...that it is not....read and weep for those that have to lie to save their own reputations.....Critics are only there to further their own ends....Mr.Weinburg was simply trying to tell you things 'as they were'.......So, my attutude to German Generals is CORRECT after all.....Thanks for your time, and i hope the above has opened your eyes to the lies and misconceptions that this group is reponsible for....If you wish to ignore such lies and pass them all off a 'telling it like it was", then you are as misinformed as most people who belliewve these people....Of course, Adolf is not around to refute any of it....very covenient!

Your argument here smacks of "Well if you think I'm wrong then you must be because I've posted an article, so there!!" Come on mate, if you want to argue this isnt gonna wash.

[Christos]

Originally Posted by plant-pilot

I have to agree PR. I have always been one for open debate, but the "I have a source, so that must be the truth" version of history is one that has always worried me.

I have lived and worked in Germany for over 20 years, on and off, and have spoken to ex-soldiers of the Wehrmacht, SS and civilians. I don't know everything and don't profess to be an expert, but I do know who the German people admire and who they hold as 'heros'. I also know the difference between a perspective of an individual who experienced an event, and that of an 'expert' who chooses to analyze it at a later date using whatever data he/she can obtain.

I know what has been written about actions I myself have been involved in and can say without argument that the 'press' version is far from reality. How can you say that a personal account, written by someone present at the time is any less valid than that of a historian trying to grasp together a mix of different versions some time later?

I've got a library of books with and by different German authors...historians, generlas, politicians, economists.....Crikey, I'm not going to list them all.....

I've listed enough here,,,and my criticism of the Russians was a SINGLE SENTENCE.....no argument or thread....


As I said, I will not be posting anything more......Debate is all about stating your case in the best way you know how...If this is not good enough,.....


Good day to you sir......

Ok.....I'm not too enthusistic about coming back here in the near future....consider this a nice farewell....for the moment....maybe...I'm not sure....I'm not sure i appreciate being called 'childish' for reasons not given...while evrybody else that commented gets nothing.....OK....I'll keep my membership and just become an observer....


Thanks to you all for your kind words over the last few weeks.....I really liked being here, but the personal stuff gets out of hand, and nobody leaps to my defence for anything....You will not be recieving any more posts from me...

Good day to you , Sir...

[Christos]

Originally Posted by plant-pilot

I have to agree PR. I have always been one for open debate, but the "I have a source, so that must be the truth" version of history is one that has always worried me.

I have lived and worked in Germany for over 20 years, on and off, and have spoken to ex-soldiers of the Wehrmacht, SS and civilians. I don't know everything and don't profess to be an expert, but I do know who the German people admire and who they hold as 'heros'. I also know the difference between a perspective of an individual who experienced an event, and that of an 'expert' who chooses to analyze it at a later date using whatever data he/she can obtain.

I know what has been written about actions I myself have been involved in and can say without argument that the 'press' version is far from reality. How can you say that a personal account, written by someone present at the time is any less valid than that of a historian trying to grasp together a mix of different versions some time later?

Ok.....I'm not too enthusistic about coming back here in the near future....consider this a nice farewell....for the moment....maybe...I'm not sure....I'm not sure i appreciate being called 'childish' for reasons not given...while evrybody else that commented gets nothing.....OK....I'll keep my membership and just become an observer....


Thanks to you all for your kind words over the last few weeks.....I really liked being here, but the personal stuff gets out of hand, and nobody leaps to my defence for anything....You will not be recieving any more posts from me...

Good day to you , Sir...

[plant-pilot]

Christos..... nobody is picking on you. I was however pointing out that the sum of your proof that the memoirs of German Generals are to be discarded as a pack of lies, and that we should only rely on the works of historians, is part of an article written by Dr. Gerhard Weinberg.

I have pointed out that those who write their memoirs are writing them exactly as that, how they remember things and how they themselves see their actions effecting the world around them. It is human nature that some things may be exaggerated, their importance over egged, changed by failing memories and yes, even added to to make their lives seem a little more exciting. No more or less that many Hollywood 'factual' productions supposedly 'based on a true story'. Writing your memoirs is like telling a story..... and storytellers have been 'adding' bits to entertain their audience for as long as they have been telling stories.

You have to remember also that it is these very memoirs that many historians base their own works. So how accurate are the works of professional historians? Even the ones that don't 'add their own twist' to history in order to sell their theories? I am a great believer that all works should be taken in context as even 'official' accounts of events can differ from the perception of even someone who was there at the time. Memoirs are just that..... the views of one person to events as they perceived them.

One last comment on your provided 'evidence' which you see as the only real evidence brought to this thread. It was written by a professional Historian Dr. Gerhard Weinberg, who comes from Hannover not too far from where I live in Germany, and has had a long and distinguished career writing on WW2 Germany and the life and times of Adolf Hitler. From that you could conclude that 'knocking' the memoirs of the Generals he writes about would encourage others to read what he has written about them. That doesn't actually make your submission 'unbiased' evidence does it?

Dr. Gerhard Weinberg is actually famed in Germany as one of the three experts on Adolf Hitler that were called to review the authenticity of the 'discovered' Hitler Diaries in 1983. He proclaimed them as authentic. They were later proved to be forgeries, so not even the word of experts can be taken at face value can it?

So nobody is picking on you, and the only reason someone may have used the word 'childish' is not because of what you were saying, but maybe the way you were saying it.

[Paul Reed]

Nobody is picking on you. However, you need to approach 'debate' in a more adult fashion; the language and tone of your statements are not acceptable, and if you cannot see that then - frankly - that is your problem. If you post more of the sort of junk you have posted above again, you will be banned from this site.

This thread is now closed.