Talk:Himmerod memorandum

Undue coverage of a controversial aspect

The Himmerod memorandum outlined a plan for the re-armament of post-war Germany, and the document goes into some detail of the proposed military structure. This is covered in great detail in Thomas Vogel's The Himmerod Memorandum and the Beginning of West German Security Policy found in this source Rearming Germany by James Corum, yet it is not even cited in this article. Instead this article gives undue weight to the controversy surrounding the "myth of the Wehrmacht", so I've tagged the article until this is resolved. --Nug (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the addition of the tag; it should stay until the article can be expanded. If Nug can add the content from the source mentioned, that would be great.

I had learned about the memorandum when working on the HIAG article, so my sources (Wette; Smelser & Davies) reflect its aspects as a “negotiating document” rather than those of a “planning” one. I read a bit on the memorandum’s overall ideas, and found the planners’ desire for a clean break with the WWII-era Wehrmacht to be notable (see Legacies of Stalingrad and Screening War, on the role of Wolf Graf von Baudissin), as well as the concept of “citizens in uniform” that had its origins in the memorandum. I might add this content as time allows. The military planning aspects of the memorandum and its impact on the eventual formation of Bunderswehr are not as much of an interest for me, so I’ll pass on working on that. The Bundeswehr article might be worth checking out to see if there’s anything applicable there.

Other good sources appear to be David C. Large, mentioned on in an earlier discussion with ÄDA_-_DÄP, as well as Abenheim already used in the article. Overall, it’s an interesting and notable topic; I hope to see the article expand in the near future. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is completely at odds with the German Wiki which has a very extensive and well documented outline of the full memorandum. Instead it focuses on the one juicy thing which is the call to rehabilitate the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS (as opposed to Algemeine SS) but without explaining how this is justified or rationalised if you prefer. The task was to find a way to integrate the future Bundeswehr into the military system of the Western Allies and the drafters reasoned that if German soldiers were seen as second tier/rate they could never fulfil that function. The paper is the founding document of the Bundeswehr and deserves more than just sensationalism. As far as controversies go it would have made more sense to focus on the group membership which despite attempts to include only 'clean' members turned out to have the drafter of the Fuhrer-oath in its midst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustyJules (talk • contribs) 15:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wette

The chapter that covers the Himmerod memorandum is titled “The Cold War Begins: Eisenhower’s and Adenauer’s declaration of honor”, see page 236. It states that "the immediate background of the declarations was the 'Himmerode memorandum'” of 1950" and discusses the former generals’ demand that the Western powers issue an official declaration attesting to the “honor” of the Wehrmacht. Page 237 is not part of the preview, but it discusses (IIRC) Eisernhower’s visit to Germany in early 1951 and how he was positively impressed with the generals he spoke to (Adolf Heusinger and Hans Speidel, both participants of the meeting). His statement to the press immediately after this meeting is also discussed.

The part of the book that the chapter above appears in is called “The Legend of Wehrmacht’s Clean Hands" see page 195, so I believe that the lead/body appropriately summarises this as "The memorandum also contributed to the creation of the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht". (Throughout the book Wette refers to this phenomenon as "the legend of Wehrmacht's 'clean hands'"; this is perhaps the German usage of the term -- I went with what I'm seeing in British/American historiography: "the myth of the clean Wehrmacht").

I returned my Wette copy but I do have The Myth of the Eastern Front; pages 74-76 discuss the same. Via Smelser & Davies: On 22 January 1951, Eisenhower signed a document that read as follows: "I have come to know that there was a real difference between the German soldier and Hitler and his criminal group. ... For my part, I do not believe that the German soldier as such has lost his honor." The authors comment:

The Eisenhower and Ridgeway [that pertained to war criminals] statements were thus important in the context of West German rearmament, but they were even more important in another context -- the evolution of the myth of the Eastern Front. With the imprimatur of Eisenhower, a rehabilitated Wehrmacht could assume a central place in the portrait former German generals had been sketching since 1945. Now, the message could get out into ever widening circles, beyond the relatively small number of American officers and intelligence operatives who had been the first to adopt the myth.

Does this meet your request for verification? I can also amend the statements to read: "The memorandum, along with the public declarations by [Eisenhower] attesting to Wehrmacht's "honor" that followed in January 1951, contributed to the creation of the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht".

Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Nug: would there be any objections to removing "request quotation" tag, with the change above? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Second ping for @Nug: would like to close on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, been away. Yes that's okay thanks. --Nug (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I made the changes. I renamed the section "Immediate aftermath" to indicate that the contribution to the "clean Wehrmacht" myth was only part of what transpired following the conference. I also added the section "Impact on Bundeswehr" for interested editors to expand upon. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The background

The background says that demilitarization, denazification and democratization was often crude and ineffective. If that was true how did Germany become demilitarized and the other things? Firestar47 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)