Guderian's book "Panzer leader"; objective or self serving?

[tomo pauk]

Has anyone read it, and if so, what's the verdict?

I do respect Schnell Heinz, but one must be careful when someone heavily involved writes about it

[BombTaxi]

It's been a while since I read this, but as I recall there was something of self-promotion about it. I shall have to dig it out and re-read it sometime, it was fascinating, whatever the agenda of the author!

[merlin]

Likewise - its a long time since I read it - 1976 while in Ibiza!

Yet, define objective? Any book that is 'objective' can be thought of as too bland!
Why do writers pick one person over another to write about, either out of admiration - they deserve wider public notice for what they achieved. Or because - they perceive their reputation underserved, and wish to redress the balance.
This book though is by Guderian himself, and not unnaturally their will be some self-justification. Yet it's up to the reader to judge if this is any more than justified by his achievements - perhaps compare with something Montgomery has written! Other German generals didn't have the opportunity to write, so we can't compare what Kluge or would have said.

Nevertheless, as a pioner of armoured warfare it is a book that should be on anyone's bookshelf - who is interested in that.

[lesofprimus]

It was a great book and alot less self serving than Doolittles or Clostermanns or Fortiers......

Ive read it twice, its like reading the evolution of Armor, done by Darwin himself...

[Amsel]

It was a great book and alot less self serving than Doolittles or Clostermanns or Fortiers......

Ive read it twice, its like reading the evolution of Armor, done by Darwin himself...

A good way to put it. Guderian was a fine General.

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the replies.

...
Nevertheless, as a pioner of armoured warfare it is a book that should be on anyone's bookshelf - who is interested in that.

That would be me

[Arsenal VG-33]

It's been so long since I've read it, I think I even gave my copy to some one. I don't think Guderian "self serving" in his book, but I don't think he gives enough credit to the outside influences of the overall preises of his books. In other words, he pinched from the works of De Gaulle, Liddel Hart, and others.

Guderian should recieve the credit of being in the right place at the right time to be able to put these theories into practice, but some of those theories did not originate with Guderian.

[BombTaxi]

It would have been interesting to see what happened if 'Plan 1919' had been required to end WWI. Like you say VG, Guderian was in the right place to implement theories that had been knocking around for two decades. Had the British implemented their own blitzkrieg in 1919, the results (or even a lack thereof), might have changed history beyond all recognition.

[tomo pauk]

Were the joint excersies with Russians in Kazan mentioned in the book?

It would be nice if the russian marshall Tuhachevskiy wrote some memoires, but of course the man was killed in purges before WWII.