"If the tanks succeed, then victory follows"
About this Quote
Guderian’s line is brutally efficient: reduce war to a single conditional, then treat the condition as engineering. “If the tanks succeed, then victory follows” isn’t just confidence in armor; it’s an attempt to turn strategy into a repeatable mechanism, like a factory process with an “on” switch. The syntax does the work. “If... then...” is the language of planners and technicians, not romantics. It carries the chill of someone who believes outcomes can be designed.
Context matters. Guderian was a key architect and evangelist of Germany’s early-war armored doctrine, pushing speed, radios, concentrated formations, and the tight coupling of tanks, infantry, artillery, and air support. In that frame, tanks aren’t merely weapons; they’re the spearpoint of a system meant to paralyze an opponent’s command and morale. “Succeed” implies more than surviving combat. It means punching through, exploiting, and collapsing the enemy’s ability to respond.
The subtext is both persuasive and self-protective. Persuasive, because it offers leaders a clean promise: fund the armored arm, trust the doctrine, reap the win. Self-protective, because it sets up a tidy scapegoat if things go wrong: if victory doesn’t arrive, the tanks must not have “succeeded” (or weren’t allowed to). It’s a salesman’s clause embedded in a soldier’s maxim.
It also reveals a dangerous seduction: the belief that a tool can substitute for politics, logistics, terrain, weather, and human will. History rewarded the idea briefly, then punished its absolutism.
Context matters. Guderian was a key architect and evangelist of Germany’s early-war armored doctrine, pushing speed, radios, concentrated formations, and the tight coupling of tanks, infantry, artillery, and air support. In that frame, tanks aren’t merely weapons; they’re the spearpoint of a system meant to paralyze an opponent’s command and morale. “Succeed” implies more than surviving combat. It means punching through, exploiting, and collapsing the enemy’s ability to respond.
The subtext is both persuasive and self-protective. Persuasive, because it offers leaders a clean promise: fund the armored arm, trust the doctrine, reap the win. Self-protective, because it sets up a tidy scapegoat if things go wrong: if victory doesn’t arrive, the tanks must not have “succeeded” (or weren’t allowed to). It’s a salesman’s clause embedded in a soldier’s maxim.
It also reveals a dangerous seduction: the belief that a tool can substitute for politics, logistics, terrain, weather, and human will. History rewarded the idea briefly, then punished its absolutism.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Heinz
Add to List








