Talk:Paul Carell

Untitled
Primarily translated the article in German Wikipedia to ensure that the information is accessible in English. Andreas 10:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Removed Military History tag as article is out of scope. The subject of the article is a civilian. Just because he was German and a member of the SS doesn't place him within the scope of the Military History project. --dashiellx (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But he is a well known military historian. By this argument, no civilian military historian, no matter how great his influence, would belong under the Military History tag. wfzimmerman

I've just removed an asserion that Glantz supports Carell's thesis regarding Barbarossa being a pre-emptive attack. Glantz specifically REJECTS this thesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.97 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Viktor Suworow
Viktor Suworow strongly supports Barbarossa being a pre-emptive attack; so he agreed to this thesis with Carell. He was ex-GRU-officer, and the access to the classified sources, and noticed many things like this and even got asyl from Britain, if I remember right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.133.19.244 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A claim that has been supported by virtually no one
As mentioned, Victor Suvorov supports this claim. Also Mark Solonin supports this claim.

Peter558 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Section on Paul Carell's Writing
I found this to be an informative article. I am, however, having read some Carell, a little uneasy about the comment in the section about Carell's military histories that he ignores the political dimension. Yes, I can see the point made in the article that Carell does ignore the political dimension of the German armed forces in the Second World War, and indeed, I'd go further and say that Carell ignores the social dimension. But I can think of plenty of military histories where this is the case, where the history of a particular war is described like a chess game, with divisions being moved over a chessboard. And if you read Carell, this is the impression one gains, that he is describing particular military campaigns (Russia, North Africa, France) like gigantic chess games. This leaves out, of course, the suffering involved, not merely of civilians, but also of the troops involved, on both sides. Elaine Scarry has written an excellent book, The Body in Pain, which points out that the way we describe war (and the history of war) obscures what is really happening. I am not trying to defend Carell here, but I think, in part, his approach to military history might be part of a wider problem in writing about war. As I understand it, the article was translated from the German language version of Wikipedia, and I understand the culpability of the German military forces in the criminal nature of the Third Reich has been a major area of debate in post-war Germany. Perhaps one way to improve the article would be to place the writings of Carell within the context of the German debate on the issue of responsibility? Just an idea. Lismore287 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)