So you are saying that my opinion doesnt count, Tom, because I havent fought in a war? Bang goes 98% of the forum's opinions so.......
It's not really what you said that made me comment above, Tom. No real problem from me with veterans of one side being as off as they like directly about the opposition. Fair enough. I get that. More lightly responding to Ron; apparently implying the wider point that it was not entirely on that we might mention him at all. If we don't cover all aspects, I don't think we're doing history any sort of service whatsoever. We're not a Panzer-fanboy sort of bunch - the evidence supports that (certainly no hagiographic 'steely' praise evident, as can be seen on the wider web) ; but I really don't want to go back down that weird thing we used to suffer under, where Axis stuff was often treated as a borderline taboo. It's daft, and doesn't happen in any other form of WW2 chatter/study/publication I can think of. Nice that we aren't the TIGERZ ARE WAY COOL fanboys (and never will be!), but we also ought to be able to chat in a chilled sort of manner on anything WW2. Again - best-selling Author and Tiger veteran dies - that's the sort of thing WW2 forums and associated nerds talk about, isn't it?
Hi Tom Not at all uncommon to hear dismissals of those who were 'not there', fair enough, but it takes all sorts as they say. As my father once pointed out it was quite ironic to train for months to fight and kill germans, only to end up marrying one. Thus becoming the son-in-law of a german ww2 veteran who was welcomed on a visit by my other grandfather, a veteran of both world wars and who also worked for UNHCR postwar. As you'd imagine, plenty of shots heard between them and those in the wider family who also served: relatives, good mates and great officers lost. The man's death was noted, as he had written a book which many have read. There is no "going nuts" over him, or his record, or his book.
GERARD I am NOT saying that your opinion doesn't count no matter how many HEAR HEAR's you want to add what I said was that a Tank Crew members opinion has more validity than one who was not shot at - as matter of fact one of my best friends was a Feldwebel who fought and had to walk back from near Moscow all the away to Dusseldorf…he was a great man in my opinion - and he didn't kill Tank Crews… Cheers
Does it though, Tom? Really? I might agree if the discussion was specifics of particular tank-related activities or actions, or what you saw, felt etc., but how people might feel about discussing a historical personality is a far more open question. Firmly into that old quote of opinions being like ... , and everybody having one. You instinctively don't like Carius because of the side he was on and that he served in Panzers that might have shot at you, but I'm pretty neutral other than finding the history interesting. I can't really see a question of validity of opinion there. And then we've got those pictures Gerry posted of him meeting up with German tank veterans postwar - sometime in the last few years. (I seem to recall chaps who might well have actually shot at each other). He was apparently happy to do so, whereas you maybe wouldn't be. That's fair enough isn't it? No single view on this kind of thing is more valid, even though you're both old tankies. Anyway... shall we draw a line under this? (doubtless give or take the odd parting shot, as is traditional ) Discussion of WW2 personalities, whatever side or affiliation - definitely allowed here. Back to old Otto. Bang 'Otto Carius Obituary' into Google and you can read reams of the real strange panzer-worship McCoy. Wondering from snippets of interview here and there if the man himself can have been completely comfortable with all that adulation, though I suppose he wrote and controlled the book, and his postwar work website ain't exactly shy of it. Some of the Knights Cross chaps seem to have lapped up the attention postwar, but others must have suffered under the bombardment of letters, queries & visitors. Sort of makes me wonder if it's the nature of the Knights Cross itself. 'Not quite' always a Germanic VC equivalent - could also be a more cumulative thing, with political attachments - several grades, traditional form, easy to propagandise and use almost as more of an Order of Chivalry than anything else. A genius sort of concoction for an authoritarian state that wanted to bind it's military with the Volk, but it hasn't half cast a long shadow over the historiography. Would we have quite so much of the 'Armoured Knights!' kind of hagiography1 if there hadn't been such a clear identifier to trace? 1) eg. Kurowski - The Barbara Cartland of the Third Reich...
A One of the lesser joys of reaching, let us say "mature years", is the realisation that one is not always understood . I am pleased however that you gave the link to the thread on which Gerry and I discuss the merits of making friends of former enemies. The point I made at the time is that I considered that only those offended against have the right to fogive their enemies and so I would be unlikely to emulate Gerry's actions, despite my unlimited admiration for him (Gerry). Giving the matter some further thought, I now realise that my hackles were originally raised by the use of the phrase "RIP" on the ww2f site and my relief that the same title appeared to be missing from this forum. If that makes me a crotchety old bugger living in the past, tough ! Given the laws of probability, you have only to hang around for a few years and you will be spared comments such as mine Ron
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard, Yes, but it is not the Thin Red Line. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards Tom
There's quite a bit of the biography / assisted autobiography that can be previewed at... https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Tigers_in_the_Mud/FKK6DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gl=GB My first impressions of what's there are that it's a rather disingenuous account that was hard not to find fault with. Reviews from decades, to a handful of years ago, seem softer than some of the more recent ones, although there are still plenty of shorts on YouTube, even recently, dedicated to cult of the Panzer Ace... On "saving Western Europe from Communism"... Seeking vindication for past deeds and fighting "defamation"... Perhaps oddest though, the negation of the invincible Panzer myth and lamenting the "injustice" of having to fight an enemy that could fight back. Having to rely on "luck" rather than innate superiority... whilst wondering how "those at the top" could have let their inferiors so badly down with their lack of intelligence...
Is this your first 'Panzer Memoir', Ramiles?.. Try Manstein's. Well, don't, unless you have trouble sleeping. Should be called 'Lost Victories That Were never My Fault'. God, I miss chatting/disagreeing with Tom & Ron like that. Civilised stuff where I'm never quite sure we appreciated what we had.
Yes, Like a Pig in Mud: Hayao Miyazaki Goes to War "Tigers Covered With Mud gets its name from Carius’ memoirs, titled Tigers in the Mud, but just like that book, Miyazaki’s manga ignores the atrocities of warfare on the Eastern Front in favor for a focused look at tank warfare. That said, when Tigers Covered With Mud was collected into book in 2002, it combined the comic with a trove of information about Carius himself (plus The Return of Hans). In addition to short essays about Carius’ wartime experience, Miyazaki himself visited Estonia and the site of the Battle of Narva, as well as visiting Carius at his pharmacy. For a man that’s often portrayed as an obsessive, single-minded filmmaker, it’s insight into other things that interest Miyazaki." ... hopefully it won't be made into a film - although muppets do do parodies...
The basic problem with German WW2 memoir literature is that it is either exculpatory (Guderian, Manstein, Speer, etc.) or the view has been extremely narrowed to the purely technical-military (e.g. US Historical Division Reports of German officers). The reasons are almost always the same: My grandfather returned from the war as a highly decorated soldier, never wanted to have anything to do with the military again, and kept largely silent about what he had experienced. However, shortly before his death he revealed a few things to me. This made it clear to me why he regularly had nightmares throughout his life - and also why he preferred to keep certain things secret. His conclusion: "In this war we have made our hands so dirty that there is not enough soap in the world to wash them clean again...".
Which ring down the bloody ages. An entire sub-historiography based for 45 years on one viewpoint. It used to often be fascinating during an argument when you realised an opponent had never read anything sourced beyond it. I still think the best German WW2 memoir I've read is Henry Metelmann's. An almost gentle account of rocking on waves created by others. No excuses made. Honest.
Unfortunately, there is not much else available from the higher brass. From Blumentritt and Arndt I found some for my research still quite useful. However, from the point of view that it is Wikipedia level. As far as the mindset and the horizon of perception within the Wehrmacht is concerned, "Soldaten" by Neitzel/Welzer is still very high on my list of favorites.
Which would be fine, wouldn't it, if it had been used to just present their views. Sadly it became the absolute base wider source on the Ost. Glantz etc. getting in amongst the Russian archives was such a big deal in the 90s. That and the Ultra stuff coming to light seem about the biggest shifts in WW2 historiography, to the extent everything written before became ever so slightly suspect regarding detail. Soldaten ordered. Maybe time to get back on the horse re. this stuff. And maybe reading books in general.
