Talk:Gotthard Heinrici

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

It is misleading to refer to him as a 'Prussian general' - there was no kingdom of Prussia any more when he served as a general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Then fix it ----

Nothing about how his actual tactics gave Zhukov a severe bloody nose. Seriously, does nobody read "The Last Battle"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoriceXII (talkcontribs) 16:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Heinrici's end[edit]

He lived in Endersbach in Weinstadt and was buried at the cemetery in Freiburg, with full military honors.'

— Oh, and was he buried alive? Good grief, what writing! Sca (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Clash with Keitel[edit]

Does anyone has insights into Hans Dollinger as a source? The account sourced to Dollinger is somewhat self-serving and over the top, and also provides an indication that the exchanges with Keitel, "armed men", "his face purple" etc, came from Heinrici, i.e. "Heinrici stated after the war that he never found out..."

According to De Wikipedia, Hans Dollinger is a writer of popular history, not a historian. I'm tempted to tag this section "unreliable source". Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The conflict as such is also covered in many other publications, incl. Hitler's Commanders: German Bravery in the Field, 1939–1945 by James Lucas, Hitler's Commanders: Officers of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine, and the Waffen-SS by Samuel W. Mitcham and Gene Mueller, Hitler's Last Witness: The Memoirs of Hitler's Bodyguard by Rochus Misch, East of the Oder: A German Childhood under the Nazis and Soviets by Luise Urban. Whether this is a regurgitation of Dollinger I can't say. Nevertheless, the conflict as such, true or not, leading to Heinrici's dismissal needs to be addressed in the article adequately. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will adjust the language to be encyclopedic and remove over the top details. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Dollinger, is an RS source; if one reads his work (which I have) one will see that he uses time and time again official documents and records in his timeline of events. As to the exchange which was there, it is from another sourced book which Dollinger was quoting. In the end, it is better not to have long quotes anyway in articles so ce of it was okay.Kierzek (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

About "dated" history books that use the input from the subject[edit]

A source being "dated" or (according to whom?) containing input from the subject does not guarantee the "dubious" label being put over it.

I think there must be some misconceptions here.

-It is a matter of debate regarding what is the best time to write history, however, the profession of history is certainly different from all branches of precise sciences, or the profession of fashion modelling where only the latest should be worn.

-Historians using the subjects' input all the time. See Primary source. The difference (with a normal person who swallows everything the participants say) is that they are trained to deal with subtleties, like determining who is telling a story that is consistent with other evidences, what is abnormal but likely true and what seems normal considering the practices of the time but actually cover other truths... I have no problem with revisionism, although it seems to be controversial today for whatever reason. However it usually takes decades to debunk something, and then decades to debunk the debunking, thus the latest usually has one problem: it would take time for others to dig out evidences to properly challenge it. Thus a page that is basically a collection of information like this should respect the historiography and "dated" sources, not merely chase after the latest.

Some say decades, some say generations, some say the history written immediately after the events are the best, some say the author being a participant is a good thing, some say not.... Example

So, as far as I see, wiki only discourages sources *widely* disapproved by other sources, especially established historians, not "dated" sources which use input from the subject. Especially in this case, when another author provides basically the same information.

Deamonpen (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)