This is an archive of past discussions about Erich von Manstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The current version of the article does not have the Smelser & Davies analysis that Manstein was strongly anti-Semitic. Here's the older text not currently in the article:
The American historians Ronald Smelser and Edward Davies wrote in 2008 that Manstein was a vicious anti-Semitic of the first order who whole-heartily agreed with Hitler’s idea that the war against the Soviet Union was a war to exterminate “Judeo-Bolshevism” and that was simply committing perjury when he claimed he could not remember his version of the “Severity Order”.
Of course "whole-heartily" should have been "whole-heartedly" but the general ideas presented in this bit are worthy of inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
To call him "a vicious anti-Semitic of the first order" is not backed up by the quoted source (page 98 of Smelser and Davies) nor by the two primary sources that I accessed to do the re-write. It appears to me to be the conclusions of the person who added the paragraph, as none of the sources say this, including Smelser and Davies. There's actually evidence that his personal feelings were not in alignment with antisemitism; for example, on page 66-68 of Melvin, it says that he protested that there was to be a requirement for pure Aryan descent for soldiers, and suggested in writing that they instead be honour bound by conviction and behavior alone (he was the only officer to oppose this clause). My overall impression was that since antisemitism was the official policy of the state, he obeyed that policy and obeyed Hitler (as required by his personal oath of allegiance), as did pretty much everyone else. Further, at least two sources say that there was a pretty good chance that he was part Jewish (Beevor, Stalingrad, page 16; Lemay, page 36-37).That's why I removed this particular paragraph. -- Dianna (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
"Vicious anti-Semitic of the first order". Lol. Thats really another masterpiece, and ofc can be nowhere found in the given source. StoneProphet (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
At what trial is this "perjury" supposed to have taken place? I just figure, if it's at Manstein's own trial, he can't be commiting perjury as he himself is the defendant. If it's a trial where he's just another witness (say, Nuremberg), sure he can technically be performing perjury. However, failing to remember an order issued years ago - or "refusing" to do so (i.e. not remembering it right will transform things from bad to worse - better not to comment, no?) is hardly perjury.--Nwinther (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
"Perjury" is lying in court while under oath. I am not seeing anything in this definition that indicates one cannot commit perjury in one's own defense. I could change it to say that he lied; would that wording be better? As to which trial, he lied both at Nuremberg, where he was testifying in defense of the General Staff and the OKW, and later at his own war crimes trial. — Dianna (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the matter of perjury is making a false statement under oath. Let us please remember that Manstein together with almost the entire German officer corps kept on banging obsessivly after the war that he because he took an oath of personal loyalty to Hitler that he never break because for German officers oath were alleged to be sacred, and never be broken. Manstein was under oath at Nuremberg when he testified that he did not enforce the Commissar Order; all of the evidence suggests that he did. That strikes me as perjury. Second, Manstein took an oath at his trial to tell the truth and nothing, but the truth. If you lie under oath, then it is perjury, and it does not matter if is in your defence or somebody's else. Please remember this is the same guy who explained at considerable length that as German officer, he could never, never, never break a oath once taken because German officers supposedly had such a strict standard of honor that made breaking an oath or telling a lie impossible for someone like him. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, which I trust can be regarded around here as a RS says the following about Manstein at his trial: "Manstein was sentenced to eighteen years' imprisoment as a war criminal but by lying to the tribunal he was cleared of charges that he had been involved in carrying out massacres of Jews. He swore that he had no knowledge whatever that the SD (Sicherheitsdienst; Security Service) was killing Jews in the area under his command, and the court believed him" (Wallach, Jehuda "Manstein, Erich von" pages 941-942 from The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust edited by Israel Gutmann, Sifriat Poalim Publishing House, Tel Aviv, 1990). The reference to Manstein have "swore that he no knowledge" shows he was under oath he testified to that effect. If you are under oath, and you lie, that is perjury. And please remember this Erich "Oaths are so sacred to me as long as they are to Hitler" Manstein who was telling the lie. A.S. Brown (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
On a similar note, he (and many others) said that they were obeying orders; they were required by their oaths to follow orders. Then why would be believe that they failed to obey these particular orders, or failed to pass them along? At a very minimum, Manstein would be required to pass along Hitler's orders such as the Commissar order, and trying to stop his subordinates from obeying Hitler's orders would be a very bad move career-wise, if not downright dangerous. I think there was discussion about this topic in Lemay 2010; I will try to find it. — Dianna (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Anti-semitic?
I agree that the above wording goes too far: "a vicious anti-Semitic of the first order". That old article text was added by A.S. Brown last November in this series of edits based on Brown's reading of Smelser and Davies. Other authors do not paint such a strong picture; they say von Manstein did not argue against anti-Semitism, that he was in general agreement with anti-Semitism but not actively in pursuit of it, which is quite a different stance than that portrayed by A.S. Brown's summary. Former Hitler youth H. W. Koch writes in In the Name of the Volk: Political Justice in Hitler's Germany, pages 179 to 180, that von Manstein was the only senior German officer who opposed von Blomberg's 1934 "Aryan paragraph" of the civil service laws. Manstein thought that applying the paragraph would be bad for the military's hierarchy, the high status of officers. Yet Manstein "did not argue against anti-semitism as such but stated that the application of such a rule would undermine the spirit of comradeship within the armed forces." Clemson University professor Donald M. McKale writes that Manstein is a "perpetrator" of Holocaust denial in that he "asserted the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was exaggerated." University of Freiburg professor Wolfram Wette writes that Manstein most likely had no "objections to racist anti-Semitic ideology as such." Manstein biographer Marcel Stein says (page 60 of Field Marshal Von Manstein, A Portrait: The Janus Head) that Manstein was unequivocally a traditional German anti-Semite. However, his form of that prejudice "was an inheritance of the traditionally anti-Semitic Prussian army." French historian Benoît Lemay writes that Manstein was not violently anti-Semitic like Blomberg and other high-ranking Nazis, but he "was no less convinced of the necessity of inflicting severe punishment on the Jews, as the primary representatives of Bolshevik terror, the main supporters of the partisans in the occupied territories, and as responsible for all the post-Versailles misfortunes suffered by the German people." These opinions of Manstein's position on Jews, his place on the anti-Semitism continuum, his denial of the Holocaust ought to be summarized for the reader. At this time, the term anti-Semitism does not appear in the article, despite many authors' interest in the matter. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph; if people could check it over and give feedback that would be great. I also found confirmation of the story about the watches, so I will add material on that to the new article Trial of Erich von Manstein. — Dianna (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Forczyk 2010 61-62: "Although Manstein found the Kommissar Befehl of 1941 distasteful, he obeyed it. In the Crimea, Manstein decided to toe the Nazi line adopted by his superior Reichenau and issued his own order authorizing his troops to 'exterminate the Judeo-Bolshevist' system. He almost certainly held racist views against Jews and Slavs prior to the war, based upon his attitudes toward Poland and Czechoslovakia. When some of his aides protested about nearby SS 'special actions', he ignored them. Indeed, Manstein's criticism of Hitler was never about Nazi policies, but about the Führer's interference with his command prerogatives." StoneProphet (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
In November 1941, Manstein issued the following order to the troops under his command:
"Every sign of active or passive resistence or any sort of machinations on the part of Jewish-Bolshevik agitators are to be immediately and pitlessly exterminated...These circles are the intellectual supports of Bolshevism, the bearers of its murderous organisation, the helpmates of the partisans. It is the same Jewish class of beings who have done so damage to our own Fatherland by virtue of their activites against the nation and civilisation, and who promote anti-German tendencies throughout the world, and who will be the harbingers of revenge. Their extermination is a dictate of our own survival." (Burleigh, Michael The Third Reich A New History New York: Hill and Wang, 2000 page 522)
Perhaps this is just me, but does a man who orders his troops to "exterminate" to use his own phrase the entire Jewish population of the Soviet Union does strike me as an anti-Semitic of the first order. It is a matter of record that Hitler believed that the Jews controlled the Soviet Union, and the war against the Soviet Union was really a war against the Jews. It is also a matter of record that the entire military leadership of Germany including Manstein also shared Hitler's beliefs about the Soviet Union being run by the Jews. Thus in the mind of someone like Manstein, those hapless, defenceless Jewish men, women and children in the Ukraine who being gunned down were as every bit the enemy as the Red Army, if not more so. It is generally accepted by the vast majority of historians today that Germany's war against the Soviet Union and the war to exterminate the Jews were part and parcel of the same process. Since by Manstein's own admission, he believed that the war against the Soviet Union was a war to exterminate the Jews who he believed secretly ran the Soviet Union (Stalin was seen as the frontman), I believe that this article should make it clear what he believed he was fighting for, namely to kill every single Jewish man, woman and child. Otherwise, by omitting what he believed the war against Soviet Russia to be all about this article is distorting the record. A.S. Brown (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
We need to add a quote form this to the antisemitism section, but we have to be careful here not to draw conclusions, but to post the evidence as laid out by the reliable sources. We cannot say "he was an antisemite of the first order" unless one of the sources says that, and none of them say that; it's your conclusion, which makes it original research. I have some similar material in Lemay that can be added to the antisemitism section. Can you please get me an ISBN for Burleigh? Thanks. — Dianna (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
"Exterminate" is certainly strong wording, but our reliable sources do not extract from that the conclusion that Manstein was an antisemite "of the first order". They moderate his antisemitism in various ways such as calling it traditional or Prussian. I think it would be a mistake for us to bring a novel conclusion to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Timeline issues
The article states:
His release on 7 May 1953 was partly a result of a recurrence of his eye problems, but also the result of pressure placed on the British government by Winston Churchill, Konrad Adenauer, Liddell Hart, Paget, and other supporters.[
So, Manstein's release on 7 May 1953 was the result of pressure placed on the British government of Winston Churchill by Winston Churchill? A prime minister doesn't pressure his own government to do things. john k (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure he does. It's not a dictatorship; the prime minister cannot act unilaterally and needs the support of his government. So he pressured parliament to make the decision to release Manstein. I will tweek the wording. -- Dianna (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Parliament made the decision? That seems unlikely - Parliament very explicitly is a completely distinct institution from "the British government" and wouldn't have jurisdiction over such things. At any rate, it's certainly true that Churchill couldn't act unilaterally, but I think "pressure" placed on "the British government" by its own prime minister is not really comparable to pressure by outsiders. Churchill would have been an advocate within the British government for Manstein's release, not someone putting pressure on the government to do so. john k (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
He certainly was an advocate for Manstein, as he even donated money to assist with trial costs. I am gonna remove the phrase until i can check it out in the sources, which are over at the library. -- Dianna (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Decoys
Small correction in Dnjepr campaign section based on a very recent source. The German counter offensive in November 1943 did not hit decoy forces.Bruchmuller (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Barratt says nothing about Soviet decoy forces, so I don't understand what you are trying to prove. Melvin does discuss decoys, so we use that source. Binksternet (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
In Barrat you will not read of decoy forces as the forces attacked were not decoy forces. In Barrat you will read that Vatutin was told on 28 november to go over to the defensive with immediate effect and protect Kiev because his forces were not longer strong enough to continue his offensive mission. He was to receive reinforcements and resume the offensive later which he successfully did on 24 december. The forces that took Kiev were obviously no decoy forces as Kiev had huge importance.Bruchmuller (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the article itself implicitly makes it clear that the forces attacked were not the decoy forces as it is earlier correctly stated that the Germans were were made to believe that the attack at Bukrin was the main effort but Vatutin attacked from another bridghead and took Kiev. The counterattack by Balck was not aimed at the forces at Bukrin but against the forces that had taken Kiev. There is therefore a clear contradiction which needs to be eliminatedBruchmuller (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC).
There can be not much doubt that when Melvin talked about decoys, he meant the Bukrin bridghead and not the forces that were later counterattacked. It cannot be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruchmuller (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
After checking ,it turns out that Melvin did make the 'decoy' statement which shows that books of a general nature can contain errors on specific campaigns and that more detailed works on these campaigns are the better source. In effect, from Barratts chapter on the soviet situation, where he describes the history of the different units involved and their commanders , one reads that 38 th Army and 3rd Guard Tank Army , the main attacking forces in the Kiev offensive were also heavily involved in the defensive fighting against the german counterattack in november-december 1943. This makes Melvin's statement about the germans only hitting decoy forces erroneous.Bruchmuller (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You say "books of a general nature" but Mungo Melvin wrote the book about Manstein's military career, focusing on tactics and details of actions, not a generalized history. It cannot be possible to erase Melvin's contribution to the topic, as he is a noted historian, especially dedicated to the subject matter. At the very least we can say that Melvin wrote that Manstein hit a decoy force which drew him out of position relative to counterattack, and that he was hit very hard on 24 December. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
What we find in the Melvin book is that the main German counterattack on 15 November was successful, and that it took Zhitomir, and also Korosten and thus the rail link to Army Group Centre. German counterattacks in December were indifferent, failing to take Kiev. Melvin says that Manstein's claims of great Soviet destruction "may be disputed", that both sides suffered serious casualties. Melvin says on page 404: "Unknown to German intelligence, much of the weight of the German counterattack had fallen on Vatutin's deception force rather than on his main shock grouping." Vatutin was assembling a large force which he pushed into action on 24 December. Melvin's point is that Vatutin led Manstein to a position whereby the 24 December offensive would be optimized. The "decoy" forces (Soviet 60th Army and the 13th Corps) were expendable in relation to the coming Zhitomir–Berdichev Offensive. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Manstein's possible Jewish ancestry
At the moment in the Antisemitism section it is says the following "While some historians, including Antony Beevor and Benoît Lemay, are of the opinion that he had some Jewish and Slavic ancestry,", where does this alleged Jewish rumour stem from the Levi? Is there any evidence to prove he had a Jewish ancestor or ancestors?
According to the book The Wehrmacht: history, myth, reality (p. 74): "Manstein had Jewish roots on his father's side as it says "Erich von Manstein was born the tenth child of Eberhard and Helene von Lewinski but was adopted by an uncle. The king of Prussia granted special permission for Erich to take his uncle's name. The Lewinski family had Jewish origins, including a distant forebear named Levi." as well as the book Germany in the Modern World: A New History (p. 181): "dismissed the evidence that Manstein had enough Jewish ancestry to qualify him as Jewish under the race laws." - this is saying that Hitler was aware of his Jewish roots but chose to ignore it. A third book called Erich Von Manstein (p. 36-37): "Furthermore, one must ask at what point in his family, and therefore, his possibly Jewish ancestry, motivated him to take the position against the introduction of the "Aryan paragraph" into the army. Much conjecture has circulated with regards to Manstein's potential Jewish ancestry. The fact that he was born under the Lewinski family name, and then adopted by the Manstein family has led several authors to presume he was of Jewish lineage. They have suggested that Lewinski could be a variation of Levy, with the addition of the Polish patronymic suffix. Without ever being completely certain, Manstein himself worried that his great-great grandfather Lewi could have been a rabbinical leader in Warsaw. At the very least, this is what Lieutenant Alexander Stahlberg, his adjutant during the Second World War on the Soviet front, and who also had Jewish ancestors, reported in his Memoirs. For his part, Manstein's son Rüdiger asserted that his family was perhaps of Jewish descent, but there was no proof to confirm the supposition. The SS led an investigation into the ancestral origins of Manstein—whom it continued to call Lewinski—in April 1944, after his dismissal. However, the dossier was not completed, and whatever the SS could find with regards to the matter remains unknown."
There seems to be a few books that cite the Jewish origins to the ancestor Levi yet according to the German Wiki "his representation Stahlberg called the Manstein biographer Oliver of Wrochem in his dissertation as speculation about "no serious manifestation" of the General. In addition, there was no evidence of a "Jewish origin of the name"." Oliver of Wrochem: Erich von Manstein. Destruction of war and the politics of history . Schoningh, Paderborn 2006 (zugl. dissertation, University of Hamburg, 2005), (p. 29).
So has the actual Jewish ancestry been debunked or does it still remain a possibility and regards to the Slavic ancestry is it confirmed he was of Polish ancestry due to the surname "Lewinski"?
It seems that different books are telling different things, was Manstein often taunted with being Jewish as Hitler, Himmler and others were despite no evidence suggesting this?--Battersy Dogs Homes (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
This question was examined at the time I brought the article to Good Article status and I found out he may have had one grandparent or great-grandparent that was Jewish, but I did not find any compelling evidence either way. Please advise who was the author of the book you are referring to that was titled Erich Von Manstein -- Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Benoît Lemay is the author of the book, you can read about it on the Google Books its available for you to read just type in "Jewish ancestry" it seems as though there was reason to doubt his Aryan ancestry and that he may have had a Jewish great-great grandfather "Levi", it makes the claim that he himself was worried about this like I mentioned that he was a rabbi in Warsaw, thus would have been a Polish Jew.--Battersy Dogs Homes (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's a link to page 74 of the Wolfram Wette book, The Wehrmacht: history, myth, reality, published by Harvard in 2009, ISBN9780674045118. Wette says "The Lewinski family had Jewish origins, including a distant forebear named Levi." Wette continues with conjecture about Manstein's motives, then he says that any connection between Manstein's motives and his (very slim) Jewish ancestry "has not been investigated." I think we are looking at thin gruel here; not worthy of much attention. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The Prussian nobility absorbed plenty of Poles over the centuries. He didn't consider himself Polish, which is probably the first thing we should consider in assigning his nationality.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not surprised that many Polish nobles collaborated with the occupying power Prussia. I just don't believe that these people ceased to be Polish. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm afraid that really doesn't count for much in comparison to the consensus view that he was a German.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
He was most definitely a German, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a Pole, of the hated subhuman Slavs according to German conceptions of race. Pistolpierre (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
He was a German. His father's family had Polish roots that is true and is already mentioned. There is also a theory that his father's lineage was Jewish but this was never confirmed. According to the Nazi conception of race, Slavs (and all other linguistic groups of Europeans such as Celts and Balts) were no different to Germans. Nordic people were seen to be the most pure of the Aryan race but this was not limited to just Nordic Germans. I've yet to see any conception of race in Nazi ideology that refers to Slavs as subhumans.
You are wrong. The Slavs were singled out for annihilation in Poland and Russia. The Germans were forbidden to interact with Poles who were considered an inferior race. Pistolpierre (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Whats poor sourced and doesn't belong in the lead ?
Germany's fortunes in the war began to take an unfavourable turn after the disastrous Battle of Stalingrad, where Manstein commanded a failed relief effort, which though was an impossible task due to Hitler's orders to general Paulus, "not to leave Volga"[1][2]. However in the aftermath of Stalingrad, von Manstein proved himself to be one of the best generals of the entire war. His operations during March 1943 are characteristic of classic Manstein tactics: swift, decisive, and exact, delivering a deadly blow to the enemy’s most vulnerable point, though inferior in numbers to that enemy[3][4]. It's widely known that he was the finest general of the Wehrmacht[5]. He was well respected also among Germany's enemies and appeared on the front page of Time Magazine in January 1944[6].
I made the change in italic above. Reasons - the lead suggests that von Manstein was a part of the - from German perspective - disaster at Stalingrad. He was not ! Is former American diplomate William L Shirer a poor source ? Or Guido Knopp ? Or the American university teachers Cesare Salmaggi and Alfredo Pallavisini. Their work "2184 Days of war" is now re-released, first edition came in 1977. Doesn't the typical style of "von Manstein's strategy" of how to defeat an enemy that outnumbers his own belong in the lead, aswell as a large majority of military and historical scientists agree that he was the finest of all German generals during the WW2, belong in the lead ? Also note that my edits of the lead are the only that are sourcered at all. This isn't a question of wheather one likes the Field Marshal or not, but simply the NPOV truth. I can appriciate that the article is of "good reading" standard. But the lead isn't up to standard. What made von Manstein famous and of encyclopedical value ? Current lead gives not the full answer. The sources are not poor. And which I forgot, the plan of how to lure the French, Belgian and British troops to quickly advance north toward the Netherlands and then gather almost all German panzer-troops and cross the Ardennes and cut off the supply lines
was all made up by von Manstein (with inspiration from Heinz Guderian), however he didn't participate in the attack that began 10 May 1940, the same day as Churchill had become PM. This has previously been erased by the same editor. So I demand an explanation. Boeing720 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
This article is already at WP:good article status, which means that it has already achieved certain standards for style, good quality prose, content, and sourcing that are listed at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Edits to the article need to maintain those same high standards in order to maintain its status as a Good Article.
According to our style guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead serves as a concise overview of the article and summarizes its main points. All material in the lead needs to appear again in the body of the article. That's why, at Good Article level and above, we typically don't place citations in the lead; we don't need them, as the citation is provided lower down, in the body of the article.
A good quality book citation includes the title, author, publisher, year of publication, ISBN number, and the page number where the material can be found. For the Shirer citation, you put "William L Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, part IV, chapter 26, around p35-42 [Swedish edition, the English may differ a few pages, but it's found in chapter 26 in beginning of the 4th and last part]", which is not the kind of high-quality well formatted citation that you would expect to find in a world-class scholarly resource that Wikipedia strives to be. The Shirer information does not appear anywhere in the body of the article, and therefore should not appear in the lead either.
I don't think that saying "Germany's fortunes in the war began to take an unfavourable turn after the disastrous Battle of Stalingrad, where Manstein commanded a failed relief effort" implies that Manstein was responsible for what happened at Stalingrad. In fact I think it implies the opposite - that he was on the outside, trying to help but failing to do so.
I can find nothing online that corresponds with your citation "Salmaggi&Pallasvini '2198 Days of War' Special article 'Battle of Stalingrad' and dates 1-20 November 1942". Regardless, the quotation does not need a second citation if it's in Shirer.
The fact that he appeared on the cover of TIME magazine already appears in the body so we don't need another citation for it in the lead. However, I don't think this information important enough to include in the lead.
We don't need to say three or four times in the lead that Manstein was a well respected and admired general. It's already covered in the opening paragraph.
Problems are also seen in your edits to the paragraph that starts with the Battle of Kursk. While it's true that Manstein did not alert Hitler to the July 20 plot, this info does not appear elsewhere in the article, and therefore should not appear in the lead. Nobody told Hitler about the plot, so I don't think we need to state that Manstein did not. The citation for it reads "Guido Knopp "Hitler's Henchmen" where von Mainstein is one of the six subjects", which is not the level of professionalism or the level of detail that makes a high-quality citation.
You add the note "A note only, general major Henning von Treschkow attempted to kill Hitler already at 13 March 1943" but you do not provide a source or explain why this material belongs in an article about Manstein.
Information about Manstein being involved in the planning for Fall Gelb appears both in the lead and extensively in the body, so I'm confused as to your final point. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
First, thanks for Your detailed answer. Appriciated. I have noticed "good article", but I can't help thinking the lead is poor and misleading f.i. the examples given reguarding von Manstein's military skills. Reguarding Salmaggi&Pallasvini - I assumed there was a special article, but insted the material is spread wider. Hoiwever 21 November - "Hitler rejects a proposal from Paulus to return back to river Don" [translated from Swedish to English, ISBN is 91-582-0426-1 by the way.] 23 November - "Hitler gives the order to Paulus, to stand on the site, and make it a fortress" [the site is ofcource Stalingrad, that now is surrounded]. 28 November - "Tragedy at Stalingrad continues. Von Manstein is planning the so called "Winter Storm", without informing Hitler." ,12 December - "Von Manstein starts Operation Winter Storm against Hitlers orders" ,17 December - "Hitler finally accepts von Mansteins plan to liberate the surrounded Germans" ,19 December - "Von Manstein's troups are advancing further toward Stalingrad" , 23 December - "General Hoth's panzer troups are only 50 km away from Stalingrad... According to the calculations, Paulus should now begin a break-out..." and "Towards the evening Paulus declares that he will not attempt to leave Stalingrad if he doesn't recieves orders from Hitler to do so. The point is only that von Manstein didn't fail, and without full support of Hitler from the very beginning the task was impossible, especially since Paulus still listened to Hitler. And this rescue attempt isn't among the main contributions to the German war effort that made von Manstein famous. It's of less encyclopedical value than what he managed to do during the following months. Shirer explains it better in detail, and the chapter is 26. I've previously noticed that exact pages may differ between languages, and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Swedish edition renumbers the pages in each of the four parts. However f.i. at Part IV, page 35 (which is included in chapter 26) the author states [again re-translated, so choice of words may differ. But not its contance - (date 19 November) "The suggestion [to retriet back to river Don] made Hitler very angry I will not leave Volga ! I will not remove my troups from Volga !, he shouted." [Göring promised him an air-bridge etc]. Next page (36) - "The 25th of November , Hitler recalled Field Marshal von Manstein from the Leningrad front [to Wolfschanze OKW-HQ, I suppose], who was his most skillfull commander in battle, and gave him command over the new Army Group Don. His mission was to approach Stalingrad from south-west and save the sixth army. Manstein tried to explain to Hitler that the only possibility to a possible success was if the sixth army also made an out-break to the west. But again Hitler stated that a retriet from Volga was out of the question. The sixth army should stay in Stalingrad, and von Manstein should fight his way all the way".
Again this is much written over a few words. But I argue that sources gives me rigth, the rescue attemp at Stalingrad was both impossible due to both Hitler and Paulus, and more importaint, this is not among von Mansteins notable achievements. But still it is stated in the lead instead of matters as his planning of the attack in the west on 10 May 1940. But as von Manstein had argued with Hitler already in 1940, he was not presant during the offensive. But Hitler, Walther von Brauchitsch and the others at OKH-staff still used von Mansteins planning. (To lure the French [mobile, France held half its army in the fortress, the Maginot line], Belgian and British troups to quickly move towars the Netherlands, and then attack through the Ardennes and cutoff the stretched supply lines, with Guderians panzer troups. And it worked above all expectations, from his point of view.
I can agree that Time-magazine and his attitude to the assasinations attempts on Hitler not really belongs in the lead. But I still have to comment Henning von Tresckow [a difficult spelling, sorry), at 20 July 1944 he had been tranfered to the eastern front, but I actually believe his attempt to smuggle a bomb in liquor bottles on board the airplane that Hitler flew with, is well-known enough, as it is already stated in the article about him. (And was included in the US-film "Operation Valkyria" starring Tom Cruise.
But my main point is that a good lead shall reflect the most encyclopedic values in brief, without giving less importaint information ahead of more importaint ones. And of cource from a neutral point of view. This isn't the case in this lead, I'm sorry to say. If even Winston Churchill (in opposition) strongly objected to put him to trial - and even started a collection to his defence, and a Labour MP became his barrister, then I think there is little doubt, that he was a respected opponant. The lead should reflect his planning of the offensive in the west 1940, his leading of the battles during the spring and summer 1943, when he at several occations defeated larger Russian units. At military academies all over the world his tactical skill is still used in teaching young officers. And that he was the only general that actually dared to argue military issues with Hitler. The judging of webb sources are almost always subjective thoughts. But I don't think I chose any source that is doubtful or propagandistic. A fair comparition between Zhukov and von Manstein for instance.
But I'm not seeking any glory, I just want the lead to reflect the military legacy of von Manstein and why he became more famous than a 1000 other German generals (in the west, he was not a Goebbels propaganda subjest due to his many arguments with Hitler. He was in that sence far from Rommel). Perhaps You could help me to improve the lead ? /reguards Boeing720 (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The lead is not intended to be a summary of the subject's notable achievements or an explanation of why he became famous, but rather a summary of the material in the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies calls for us to establish notability in the opening parapgraph, and we've done that. The remainder of the lead (per WP:LEAD) needs to act as a concise overview of the contents of the article, drawing material from many if not all sections of the article, covering its important points. It's not necessary or desirable to repeatedly explain why the subject is important or famous.
I don't agree with adding any further information about Stalingrad to the lead. We don't need to explain in the lead why the relief failed. If people want to know more, the information is there, in the body of the article.
I don't agree with adding any information about plots against Hitler to the lead. Manstein was not involved in these plots. It was not a major event in Manstein's career, and it's not a major topic of this article (3 sentences only).
Our article Assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler lists 27 different assassination plots, none of which involved Manstein. I don't think it's appropriate to single out the plot by von Tresckow for inclusion in the lead or anywhere else in this article. Manstein was not involved, so it's off-topic. Wikipedia:Good article criteria 3b requires that the article stay focused on the topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Mungo mentions that "one of his hallmarks in army group command on the Eastern Front was his 'elastic defence'" (page 28). Lemay uses the term on page 361 in conjunction with activities in 1943. Neither author indicates that the term was first used in conjunction with Manstein. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I also agree to not add more info about Stalingrad to the lead, but to remove that part, since it wasn't this that made him stand above other German generals. I also agree that repeating facts doesn't belong in a good lead. But briefly mention his most importaint contributions to the German war effort is necessary. I can though see Your point about his view to assasinate Hitler, it can though be mentioned further down. As You state, he was not involved (but asked, and didn't alert Hitler - so further down, but not in the lead) As I stated, I needed a lot of words just to proove that I wasn't making any things up. OK ?
So, as I see it now, regarding the lead, we come down to what examples that descibes his military career best, don't we ?
1"He was one of the planners of Fall Gelb (Case Yellow), an offensive through the Ardennes during the invasion of France in 1940."
This is not optional. First, Heinz Guderian was the first to suggest (atleast in wrighting, "Achtung Panzer") that panzer troups ought to be used as stand alone units, rather than just inantry support. This was adopted by von Manstein, that used Guderians ideas in his overall plan for the offensive in the west. It was von Manstein that suggested to lure the western allied (incl. the rather strong Belian army) to advance towards the Metherlands, where the Germans also attacked (but the Dutch army was very weak, even in comparission with the Belgian). The main objective was not so much to occupy Holland as soon as possible, but to
get the allied armies to make a stong counter offensive. And then use almost all German panzer troups to cut off the allied armies in their right flank. To do this the Germans had to force the Ardennes (which was concidered impossible by atleast the French generals, but they also relied on WW1 strategy. Only colonel de Gaulle believed in panzer as stand alone units, but the generals didn't listen to him) Hence the German panzer troups drove across the Ardennes and cut off all mobile allied units from their supply lines. In principle the battle was over already by the evening of 15 May. Altough von Manstein had been send home after arguments with Hitler and others at the OKH-staff, the Germans used his plan of the offensive in the west His contribution wasn't only "He was one of the planners".
2"Germany's fortunes in the war began to take an unfavourable turn after the disastrous Battle of Stalingrad, where Manstein commanded a failed relief effort. He was one of the primary commanders at the Battle of Kursk,..."
It was indeed not von Manstein's fault that the war turned. (Besides, the German fortune ended already in December 1941, outside Moscow) His attempt to save the sixth army became an impossible task due to many factors and may very well have failed anyway. But without cooperation from Hitler and Paulus it became an impossible task. More important, was though how von Manstein (outnumbered by his enemy) managed to incapacitate the Russian 4th Army and restabilize the German front, that elsewise could have broken down totally. He thereby also saved all remaining German troups that retrieted from the Kaukasus area (between the Black Sea and (almost) the Caspian Sea. Not until the battle of Kursk - 7 months later, did the Red Army get another great victory. Never mind who invented the "ellastic defence", but von Manstein prooved to be a true master in such combat. The lead ought to reflect this insted of Stalingrad. Von Manstein was not to blame for the disaster at Stalingrad, but readers of the current lead easilly will get that impression.
(3) "His ongoing disagreements with Adolf Hitler over the conduct of the war led to his dismissal in March 1944." Here is an example of a matter that actually ought to be mentioned twice (he was releaved twice aswell). The second time it ought to be mention also that he was the only general that dared to stand up against Hitler in military matters. I've only heared about architect Albert Speer doing the same, but that was in the very end of Hitlers' reich. After the war von Manstein also wrote a book "Lost Victories" (Verlorende Siege), in wich he in strong words critizises Hitler and his leading of the war. [I havn't read it, don't even know if it's available in other languages than German]
Of cource Nazism, Adolf Hitler, the war and the Holocoust all were deeply sad events in history of mankind. But I strongly feel that we still have the same obligations to describe persons that in any sence were involved in any of these matters - even if they served an indeed dislkiable system - as NPOV and truthful as we can. The von Manstein article lead must therefore be optimized, in order to describe the most importaint NPOV matters to which von Manstein contibuted during WW2. As a military person, he was the finest and most skillful of all German commanders, according to a vast majority of sources that deals with this/these subject/s. And that is currently not reflected good enough in the lead. 83.249.175.195 (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Fall Gelb, Halder's role was important, as was Hitler's. USAF Colonel Doug Dildy (Retired) writes in Fall Gelb 1940 (1): Panzer breakthrough in the West, that Halder was the "chief architect of the Fall Gelb plan." Dildy emphasizes that Halder and Hitler both pushed for a stronger southern attack. The Hitler/Manstein lunch meeting on 17 February 1940 was important, of course, because the two men found that they agreed upon strategy for Fall Gelb, but the next day Halder presented Hitler with the same idea, this time laid in detail, which the OKH had already been working on for days. The timeline presented by Dilby shows that Manstein was not the only forceful advocate of the sensationally successful plan. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Franz Halder made several plans. But Hitler wasn't pleased with his plans and I believe neither was Gerd von Rundstedt [to which von Manstein had given his plan, in order for Rundstedt to give to Hitler, von Manstein served under Rundstedt during the Polish campaign]. But it was von Manstein's plan that was used in the end. An incident that may have been of great importance was the German officer that was shot down from an aircraft, and who had much of the as of then current plans with him. This may have benefited new ideas, such as von Mansteins. Who is Dilby ? There is no one with that name among the sources in this article. And please remember that Halder wrote a very detailed diary, which William L Shirer had access to when he wrote The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. If Halder had made the Ardennes offensive plan and von Manstein just agreed, then Shirer would have mentioned it. Also, both Halder and von Manstein wrote about the war afterwards, Halder "Hitler als Feldherr" and von Manstein "Verlorende Siege". If it would have been as You suggest, this had been known long time ago. Does Dilby really state that Halder come up with the plan, You mention a timeline. Perhaps You read too much in it. Neither the Wikipedia Franz Halder article or the Manstein Plan mention anything of this. Further dozens of other authors have given von Manstein credit for the plan. But as I've said before, von Manstein didn't participate in his own offensive. Boeing720 (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Dilby is a military historian who can be used in this biography. Manstein's diary will of course contain Manstein's version of events, but others will differ. We cannot rely on Manstein's diary or especially Manstein's self-serving autobiography for the main thrust of this Wikipedia article about Manstein himself. The analysis of others is critically important.
Halder had a change of heart, he was initially a proponent of the unambitious first version of Fall Gelb, the attack in the north, but later he shifted to being a proponent of the southern attack version, and extensively reworked the plans at OKH. These were the plans that Hitler saw on 18 February 1940, giving his official approval. Manstein did not draw up these plans, though he was a very important source.
Guderian was one more person who was critically important to the success of Fall Gelb. The plan could easily have suffered from the timidity of field officers halting or slowing their advance because of various battlefield unknowns, but Guderian swept through all obstacles to the Channel. Manstein can be credited for lighting a fire under Guderian beforehand, a fire which Guderian was only too happy to carry into battle because he, too, believed in a massed lightning attack by armor. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I only mentioned that the books that Halder and von Manstein wrote after the war, never has caused any disagreements between either the ex-generals or among historical authors. I've never read anyone stating that Halder was the man behind the plan. Does Dilby really state this ? We shall NOT use von Manstein (or Halder) as source for this article. But ther has to my knowledge never been any contradictions between them about who's plan that Hitler in the end used. To my knowlidge von Manstein didn't write any diary during the war. But Franz Halder did, and during the time September 1939 until the end of 1941 and the German defeat outside Moscow, William L Shirer (and other historical authors) has used Halder's diary. And from his "brickstone" The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Shirer through Halder's diary clearly points to von Manstein as the master brain behind the plan that eventually was used. This is also supported in Guido Knopp's "Hitlers Henchmen" (Which is about six different military persons in the Wehrmacht, one of them is von Manstein. He also suggest that von Manstein was relieved at the time of the offensive, and he lived in Lower Silesia at that time, May 1940).
Further all other encyklopedias support von Manstein as the man behind the plan that eventually was used. Hitler first got the Manstein plan from von Manstein's commander during the Polish war, Gerd von Rundstedt. Guiderian's strategical contributions was not much more but to previously (a few years earlier) have suggested that panzer troups NOT should be a help to the infantry only, but separate units. And he participated in the Ardennes offensive under von Rundstedt. Out of 10 German panzer divisions, 7 was used by Army Group A, and led by von Rundstedt, that crossed the Ardennes, together with 45½ infantry divisions. Army Group B under Feodor von Bock had 3 panzer divisions and 29½ infantry divisions further north. Army Group C had no panzer and 19 infanty divisions, and were mainly "garding" the static Maginot line, atleast in the beginning. Germany disposed at the time also 42 divisions as backup.
The precise disposition of the divisions may Halder or von Brauchitsch decided, but the idea to use the vast majority of them at the Ardennes came originaly from von Manstein, doubtlessly. The final directive was "W.FA/abt. L-Nr 22-180/40 g k" (2184 days of war pg 49, headline "May 9th") To the French-Belgian-British collapse, also the French archaic stategy was a major contribution, and they had no mobile reserve (!) only the Maginot line crowded by static units. 83.249.163.85 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
^William L Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, part IV, chapter 26, around p35-42 [Swedish edition, the English may differ a few pages, but it's found in chapter 26 in beginning of the 4th and last part]
^Salmaggi&Pallasvini "2198 Days of War" Special article "Battle of Stalingrad" and dates 1-20 November 1942
Here I found interesting reading, atleast to be a webb-source. One must though keep in mind that it's written by an English major. Apparently von Manstein also wrote a diary (But it's not mentioned in Shirer's work though. Presumably Halders diary are of higher historical value, but that is not the same as stating that any of Halder's ideas were used in May 1940) And the author, like Guido Knopp, states that von Manstein was away from the west. And that it was von Manstein's plan that Hitler and von Brauchitsch chose. I haven't read it all yet.
I reverted the recent change to the lede as it gave too detail and weight to Sickelschnitt. That said, I do think that it should mention that he was the commander of the "back-hand blow", i.e. Third Battle of Kharkov, and his defense after the failure of the Stalingrad relief effort allowed Army Group A to successfully retreat from the Caucasus.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
My changes was, so far, only related to the Manstein Plan. Just to state that he was one of the planners is incorrect. The plan that Hitler and von Brauchitch chose, was as referenced by Melvin (that also appears in the article). The article isn't about World War II as such, the Polish part is not what made von Manstein famous. Yet I kept it. But I do not give too much weight to his planning of the offensive to the west. As I wrote for four years 1914-1918 both sides had attempted a major breakthrough (which costed the lives of millions of soldiers), but in 1940 von Manstein came up with a plan that included how his enemies would react, and his assumptions were correct and decided the destiny of that time. The plan was entirely von Mansteins own, but as I also wrote, Hitler could have chosen another (in the beginning of the war he did actually listen to his generals points of views). I provided this
http://www.thehistoryreader.com/modern-history/manstein-sichelschnitt/ (please read the ending lines), Guido Knopp wrote just about the same in "Hitlers Henchmen" (in wich von Manstein is one of six Wehrmacht offiucers that he examines. Also William L Shirer gives full credit to von Manstein regarding the plan. Aswell as other encyclopedias. I do not want to promot von Manstein to a saint , but from a military aspect this plan was the most brilliant in military history, that credit remains even if he served the wrong side. And the article deals a lot about this perticulary issue. Diannee clearly states that the lead shall reflect the article. And he didn't participate due to the fact that Franz Halder had given him nothing perticular to do in Stettin, so he was at home. The main phrase clearly must be he was the brain behind the plan wich Hitler & von Brauchitsch eventually chose (in those words or similar, since no other had an affect at the basic strategy of his plan)Boeing720 (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
What now ?
First though - was it really necessary to attck my IP, after I already had appologized for not notecing that I wasn't logged in ? And the warring warning not warranted ! I reverted back the text, since no explination was given to the rejection.
I have attempted to improve what's necessary - Hitler and OKH chose von Mansteins plan, not Halders. There were no further strategical changes to von Manstein's plan. Of cource matters as "which division here and there, or which officers that should lead the attacks" were not made up by von Manstein. But the main strategical plan, to both make an attack that remainded of the Schlieffen-plan and to cross the Ardennes was von Manstein's. I still oppose the formulation "He was one of the planners of Fall Gelb (Case Yellow), an offensive through the Ardennes during the invasion of France in 1940." Fall Gelb/Case Yellow isn't importaint, this name came from Halder (who as cheif of the OKH-staff, held the position that mostly remainded about how the old German Imperial army had been strategically lead during WW1). But several versions was rejected by Hitler. But through von Rundstedt, von Manstein's plan got to Hitler. There is much to say about how and why Hitler chose von Manstein's strategy, but Hitler did chose von Manstein's strategy in the end. For this article Halder's affect to the plan is next to none. And I do then reffer to the overall strategy. (More importaint than Halder, would be what and who that inspired him. Like Guderian, von Tresckow and possibly von Rundstedt).
We have safe well written sources from William L Shirer to Mungo Melvin and Guido Knopp. And the result of the battle of France cannot be disregarded from, depending of point of view, it was astonishing or horrific. Overwhealming. Something not even the Germans themselves could believe. But von Manstein found all the weakness in the French defence stategy (which de Gaulle also had done, by the way) Boeing720 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that it's fair to say that Manstein inspired or originated Sickelschnitt in the lede, and that can be expanded to mention the refinement of the plan done by others after he left Army Group A in the mainbody.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, first only - I have never used any specific terminology like "Fall Gelb" or "Sickelschnitt", and I have no perticular suggestion what to call it. Secondly, it was far from obvious to choose von Mantein's stategy at the offensive. But a series of events led to the choice of von Manstein's strategy. (Including the officer that was shot down in Belgium etc, but the Why ? reg. choice of von Manstein's strategy, doesn't belong in the lead, I feel). And I'm strictly talking about the basic strategy behind the offensive, only. We could debate what inspired von Manstein (like Guderians ideas of how to use panzer troups, discussions with von Trescow and von Rundstedt etc) but fact remains. The basic strategy as presented to, and eventually used by Hitler, "belongs" to von Manstein. Article currently states "He was one of the planners of Fall Gelb (Case Yellow),.." - if "planner" includes the refinement during March and April 1940, then I feel lots of unnecessary stuff becomes included, for a lead. How about changing the centance to
suggestion - "After May 1940, he become famous as the strategist behind the large German offensive in the west, although he didn't participate himself in the Battle of France during its imperative initial phase" - or something like that ?
I have removed your new section Nazism and the "New Order" in Russia. The sourcing is not very good; we have no way of knowing who wrote the article at the Jewish Virtual Library or what sources they used, so I don't think I would consider it a reliable source in this instance. You cite one sentence to "Carver, p231", which is inadequate. Book sources require full author name, title of the book, ISBN number, name of publisher, location of publisher. The last sentence had no source at all. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Looking closer at your edit, I see that it was copied word-for-word from the source material at Jewish Virtual Library, and therefore is a copyright violation. I have left more information on your talk page as to why it is not okay to do that. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well for instance according to Swedish law atleast three centances can be used. For non-commercial use even a few pages. But I actually made some rephrasing, and had done even more so, if I first had not read the Trial of Erich von Manstein article, and there noted that some parts was copyed letter by letter from the Erich von Manstein article. I don't by who though. But that article has two main contributers, of which You are one. You may say, "Yes but that was within this Wikipedia". That may be so (?). But from a pure moral aspect - and from the perspective of the article credentials, which many contributers feels are importaint - then I humbly would say that it's seldom wise to teach one thing, but doing the opposite.
You seem to dislike not only von Manstein, but me aswell. This is not the other way around. For instance I think the "Trial of von Manstein" is good reading. And well done by its authors. I only had to point out that Paget [at 1948]was a King's Council, KC. This I've lerned through BBC and ITV, is importaint in England and Wales. Around 13% of all currently active barristers recieve this title. Barristers are the only ones that are allowed to plead in a court, while soliciters help their clients during interrogations and prepare the case for a barrister. Unlike soliciters, barristers can be serving a client in one case but serve the crown (as prosecutor) in another case. I think perticulary British readers can react againt "lawyer" (In Scotland advocates are used insted, but I'm not familiar with those.)
I would never stand up for changes in an article like von Manstein, without having a good knowlidge about what I contribute to. The reason I had a look at the article was simply a BBC-documentary about the so called "phoney war", battle of France - and von Manstein. But I've previously read f.i. Shirer "Fall & Rise", Bullock "Hitler en studie i tyranni" (its Swedish title, sorry) , Churchill's annual books of the war (for which he recieved Nobel's prize in litterature) and more modern stuff as Knopp ("Hitler's Henchmen" and "SS - tool of evil"), HH Kirst "20th of July" (which is a sourced novel). I've read pretty much of WW2, and the most mentioned of Hitler's generals either are Rommel or von Manstein. The article must reflect the truth, as far as we can come. I've also read some more military stuff, and here von Manstein also occures, like no other general in the war. And I also do not see every general in black or white. It's typical American to ignore other perspectives. The "Who are the bad guyes ?" -perspective, if I so may label it. But Wikipedia must stand above such things, and hence also former enemies ought to be given a fair article. And I find it interesting that a Jewish webb page doesn't think of him as a Hitler or a Himmler. To so lightly removing an interesting view & source [it build on other sources], must be questioned. And similar contence can be found elsewhere. Why on earth would Winston Churchill else stand up for him ? The BBC-documantary suggested that he was (decided to become) prosecuted only due to Stalin's wishes. After his release he helped the new Germany and its Bundeswehr to become a part of NATO. And general Hans Speidel even become chief of the entire alliance. Until his death in 1973, von Manstein was a popular person, also among his former enemies. Boeing720 (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I've also noticed that this article once has been feutured, so good reading is as step down. Anyone that can explain this ? Boeing720 (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Prose in Wikipedia is available for use under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license (CC-BY-SA) license. This means that prose is available for re-use, as long as it is properly attributed. How we do this is to specify the source of the prose in the edit summary when the material is moved. The Trial of Erich von Manstein was created using material from this article, so the edit summary when that article was created reads "Create article using content from main article". The edit summary for the removal of the content from the main article reads "Remove the majority of the content to new article: Trial of Erich von Manstein". In addition, templates were placed on the talk page of each article to provide documentation and attribution. The templates appear at the top of each talk page, right below the wikiproject templates.
Regarding copyright law, we have to follow the laws of the United States, as that's the country where the servers are located for this wiki. The rules are quite strict under United States law. There's more information at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
Regarding this article's status as a former featured article, it was promoted to Featured Article in 2004, when standards were much lower, and was demoted in 2006, when Featured Article standards were beginning to be raised. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should attempt to make the article featured again then, according to the new standard ? And we could perhaps start with his Surname/Family name/Last name ? You cannot compare a name given at birth (I know Erich was adopted, but I hope we atleast can agree on that) with the honnourific system in the UK. In a sense "von Manstein" is honnourific, since the German "von" like French "de", Dutch "van" or "van der" or Scandinavian "av" or "af", indicates a noblemen family. However it is a part of the name and is inherited from ones parents. Today the nobleman system doesn't exist as it used to. Such surenames has nothing to do with honnourific appointment in the UK, like "Sir". (I'm not an expert on British knighthood, best to add.) But "von" is indeed included in, a part of, the family name. Boeing720 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
What about f.i. Marco van Basten, should he be referred to as "Basten" only ? Generally speaking. To Diannaa, the name is no big deal as I see it, but it's not to be compared with British knighthood. More importaint - I'm rather tired of this article now. But whatever You or I think about this military man, we cannot disregard from the fact that Hitler eventually "bought" his basic idea of how to make the offensive in the west in 1940. The result also came down to the old and conservative French generals. (And Your efforts in the trial article seriously is very well done.) Boeing720 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Dutch 'van' is not used in the same way as German 'von', it is not generally a marker of nobility and it is never omitted. See the German Wikipedia article on Manstein, which uses the honorific the first time the name is mentioned, and then omits it throughout. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Anti-Semite?
The current version of the article states: "there is no clear evidence that Manstein objected to the racial policy of Nazi Germany". Not only is this claim, as stated in the article, based on the fact anti-Semitism was common throughout Europe in those times, but I have a source here in which Ulrich de Mazière, at the 2:54 minute mark, says: "Manstein was not a Nazi. Not at all. There were irreconcilable differences between Hitler and Manstein, on both sides. But in the tradition in which he was educated he felt he had to do his duty. You may condemn him as a failure or you may see his behavior as the outcome of tradition in a historical context. He belonged to a generation of generals who were brought up in the tradition of a 1000-year-old empire." I think we should reformulate the current wording. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is too strongly worded. It's not the version that passed GA. The version that passed GA can be viewed here: Previous revision of Erich von Manstein. The content was added since that time and I was disinclined to insist on its removal. There's previous discussion on this topic at Talk:Erich von Manstein/Archive 4. Please consider posting a suggested wording for the section, or perhaps we could revert back to the version that passed GA (for this one paragraph). -- Diannaa (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
While Manstein only argued with Hitler on military factors and his memoirs ignore political questions, he's views concerning the racial policies of Nazi Germany have been the subject of speculation. Upon hearing of the Severity Order of Reichenau issued by Manstein, Bernd Freytag von Loringhoven, a friend and colleague, exclaimed: "I can't conceive of that. To me, that ins't Manstein." People like historian Wolfram Wette, on the other hand, argue there is no clear evidence that Manstein objected to the racial policies of his country.
I think it's too mildly worded; we know Manstein did nothing to stop the killings by the Einsatzgruppen in his area, and mulitple sources tell the story about the wristwatches. I'd rather go with the prose from the version that passed GA, which has a lot more detail. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
We should probably also mention that Manstein took the highly unusual step of protesting the expulsion and discrimination of serving Jewish officers and veterans in the early years of Naizsm, though not a ban on appointing new Jewish officers. This got him into trouble. We should also mention that his protest may have been partially motivated by the fact that it affected two Jewish relatives. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonas, the old version is very much the same as the present version. What I am suggesting is that the material added since the GA review be removed. Regarding Jewish officers, on page 66-68 of Melvin, it says that he protested that there was to be a requirement for pure Aryan descent for soldiers, and suggested in writing that they instead be honour bound by conviction and behavior alone (he was the only officer to oppose this clause). -- Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Diannaa, now I'm very confused! I started this new section because I felt "there is no clear evidence that Manstein objected to the racial policy of Nazi Germany" was too strong a wording and that it should be reformulated. And since the particular part in question is virtually the same in the GA-version as it is now, how is removing information adding since then going to help? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to be unclear. My opinion is that we should not over-emphasise his antisemitism, because he was not strongly antisemitic. The section could be made shorter, perhaps by using the version from when the article passed GA. But your suggested wording is too short, and leaves out too much detail. I have no objection to the removal of the phrase "there is no clear evidence that Manstein objected to the racial policy of Nazi Germany". -- Diannaa (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Manstein opposed the introduction of the "Aryan paragraph" into the army for two reasons: losing good German officers and fear of his own ancestry.
A letter was sent in 1934 from Manstein to Beck about losing potentially good German officers because their ancestry might not be "Aryan", for the full text see Erich Von Manstein: Hitler's Master Strategist, Benoît Lemay pp. 34-35).
Regarding his own possible Jewish ancestry, Lemay writes: "Without ever being completely certain, Manstein himself worried that his great-great grandfather Lewi could have been a rabbinical leader in Warsaw." Although a great-great grandfather would not have made Manstein be considered "non-Aryan", his own ancestry possibly played a part in his refusal to introduce the "Aryan paragraph" into the army (same book pp. 36-37).--Mahia Zatrung (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The way you worded it was to say "Lemay believes the most probable reason why Manstein refused to introduce the "Aryan paragraph" into the army was due to his own fear that he had Jewish ancestry", and Lemay does not actually say that. What LeMay says is that the most likely reason Manstein objected to the Aryan paragraph was to protect not himself but his two grand-nephews, who were members or the Reichswehr and were both Mischlinge. This information is on the bottom of page 36. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've added into the article: "Despite adhering to National Socialism racial ideology, Manstein was the only Reichswehr officer who opposed the idea of introducing the "Aryan paragraph" into the armed forces; he personally sent a letter in 1934 to General Ludwig Beck protesting in the defense that it would result in losing good German officers, how much his fears about his own possible Jewish ancestry also contributed to this defiance will never be certain."
Not so good. Some of it is copied directly from the source, and there's other issues. I have amended it, see what you think. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Would it not be worth using semicolons rather than so many sentences? The text is fine though, I see no problem with the tweaking you've done.--Mahia Zatrung (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
"Manstein was the only Reichswehr officer who opposed the introduction of the Aryan paragraph into the armed forces; in 1934 he sent a letter of protest to General Beck, commenting that anyone who had volunteered to serve in the armed forces had already proven their worth and should not be expelled even if their ancestry was not completely "Aryan". Lemay speculates Manstein may have been hostile to the induction of it to protect his two grandnephews who were classified as Mischlinge but were already serving in the Reichswehr. Although it cannot be made for certain, he may have also been concerned about the possibility that he himself had distant Jewish ancestry."
No, that would not be an improvement, in fact it is not as good. You're using semicolons to string together material that stands alone better as independent sentences. This makes the sentences too long, unwieldy, and more difficult to understand, because the material you are combining is on slightly different topics. Simple, direct prose is what we are looking for. "Although it cannot be made for certain" is not grammatically correct. "hostile to the induction of it" is not grammatically correct. There's no reason to put Aryan in scare quotes. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Kursk not one of the largest tank battles, the largest
Whoever wrote this has the Battle of Kursk wrong, it isn't one of the largest tank battles in history it is the largest tank battle in history.
Much of what was written about the battle of Prokhorovka is now known to be a myth. The story put forward by Soviet historians was that of two large tank forces colliding, with the Soviets annihilating the Germans, though with heavy losses to their own forces. The truth is that the Germans badly defeated the Soviets, mainly due to Soviet ineptitude, while suffering small losses themselves overall, though with severe losses in some units. In particular the Germans lost very few tanks. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Wehrmachtbericht report
I reverted to prior version, which is IMO superior: "Eight mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht: 11, 12 and 31 October 1941; 19 and 20 May 1942; 2 July 1942; 20 March 1943; 4 August 1943."
The section itself was citing from the OKW propaganda report, the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. In either case, the section is citing verbatim (including in German) a piece of propagana that has no informative value; all such reports were approved by the Reich Propaganda Ministry and were meant solely to instill optimism in the German population.
Sample of the text removed:
The troops of the Army and the Waffen-SS, under the command of Field Marshal von Manstein, in excellent cooperation with units of the Luftwaffe under the supreme command of Field Marshal von Richthofen, during the German counter-offensive between the Donets and the Dnieper, which led to the re-conquest of the city Kharkov and Bielgorod, inflicted heavy losses in men and material to the enemy.
Per WP:BRD, editors are not supposed to reinstate a contentious edit, while the discussion is ongoing on the Talk page. I would recommend letting consensus develop instead, as you have suggested on my Talk page: User_talk:K.e.coffman#Wehrmachtbericht, and go from there. WP:Consensus applies to both removal and addition of content, as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I have removed it. I think the material should stay out, as it consists of OKW press releases; it's Nazi propaganda. — Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
So, I have been watching this unfold over the day. MisterBee1966, your high handed attitude does not serve you well...repeatedly restoring the content that two different established users took out and calling their edits vandalism to boot is definitely a no-no. So be warned that a block might be looming if you insist in continuing your behaviour. I have undone your last edit; restore it again, but at your own peril. All involved parties are invited to hash out a consensus here. Lectonar (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Wehrmachtbericht was no more propaganda than equivalent Allied broadcasts. I fail to see why they cannot be included with the proviso that they are noted as being such. These mentions are equivalent to someone being mentioned in dispatches, and are therefore notable information about the subject. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Would you please give us an example of a Wikipedia biography about an Allied top commander who has a radio mention listed prominently along with his 'Decorations and awards'? Poeticbenttalk03:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
One can always use more propaganda! Photo of smiling Russian soldier wearing helmet, with rifle, 1942. US government material (public domain). (Image of a war-time U.S. propaganda poster added to lighten the mood. The American propagandists did not quite get it right: the file description notes that "the soldier is wearing the obsolescent French-style Adrian helmet, which was already being replaced by the iconic Ssh-39 and 40s".). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Why these Wehrmachtberichte here, on a page dedicated to one German top general? And why these specific three reports and not some more about Leningrad or Operation Zitadelle, and why not also some Soviet reports? Don't be limited to one general, be bold; all top generals' pages should have some, and, please, invade World War II page with an inundation of German, English, American and Russian propaganda material. The presentation of these Wehrmachtberichte could be warranted in an opus so deep and detailed that the publishing of any crap of primary source may be justified. This page is not such a work. Any encyclopedic page is not. Carlotm (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to why the authors are not considered as a reliable source for their own opinions? Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies are former professors of history at the University of Utah and the source book is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. I was unable to find any biographical information on Benoît Lemay but the book was highly useful in prepping this article for GA. I don't see any reason to remove these historian's opinions from the article. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Lemay is a French history PhD but don't quote me. I'll reference WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:VNOTSUFF again. We can, of course, verify any opinion to anyone as long as we can demonstrate that they actually said it. But, we don't do that here. The opinion has to be topical, i.e. the person in question is a subject matter expert or an involved party on the underlying topic. We don't indiscriminately collect opinions and not all opinions are of equal weight. For example, in the course of writing a new biography I ran across this, something also related to an article I was planing on working on, Walther von Reichenau. In that source a PhD holding professor at the University of Warsaw is on the record saying that von Reichenau was not an anti-Semite while putting forth other assertions, such him knowingly helping to protect "his daughter's Jewish boyfriend." The problem? Kozlowski is a mathematician by training and profession, he has absolutely no standing on passing judgement on complex topics of history. To quote his opinion, while absolutely verifiable as his opinion, is not appropriate. Nobody cares that a Mathematician thinks von Reichenau wasn't an anti-Semite. Similarly, while totally verifiable, the legal opinions of Smelser and Davies don't matter, they are't qualified to offer that sort of context for the reader. Also, I know I didn't remove the sources, merely tagged them as being insufficient. I get how that may be confusing. Should we just remove them? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
So what you are saying if I am understanding you correctly is that since these historians are not lawyers, their opinions about Manstein's lying at his trial are questionable. Sorry but I disagree. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to form an opinion as to whether or not someone is lying. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Not that was lying, that he committed perjury, which is a specific legal term and a crime. Hypothetically, if an historian is quoted as saying that someone was "untruthful", or that his statement was "unlikely", or even just that he "lied", then there usually wouldn't be an issue. But they are not qualified to conduct legal analysis for the reader. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Diana, it doesn't look as if there are highly technical legal issues involved here. If there were, I agree we'd need a legal expert as a source. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Entire books on the science of identifying perjury, such as The Language of Perjury by Roger Shuy (linguistics of perjury), and have been written. Criminology professor Lawrence Salinger covers the complexity of prosecuting the crime in the The Encyclopedia of White Collar Crime Vol 1 (p602). Even in cases where it's established the subject has lied it still doesn't guarantee perjury. Establishing perjury can be complex and asserting its unprosecuted presence requires a subject matter expert. I have a suspicion that the source may not be accurately quoted and that the term "perjury" is not actually used, which would make it a moot point. If someone has the ref a check would be great, otherwise I'll do it when I get it. I haven't tried to remove the assertions; in the meantime I think the tag is appropriate until a firm consensus can be established, here or at RSNB. Can we all agree on that for now? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Per the WP:BRD cycle, your edit has been challenged and removed, so it stays out until there's consensus that it belongs. You don't have consensus at present to re-add these tags. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
BRD is an optional resolution strategy. Per policy, as covered in WP:VNOTSUFF, the onus to include contested content is on you. I'm try to be agreeable by proposing a tag indicating the need for more attention to the topic instead of removing it straight off. I think that's very reasonable. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
At the time we are writing about, Breslau is the only correct version. It should be underlined that the city´s name today is Wroclaw. We don´t write about St Petersburg during Stalin either. Historical facts only. Boeing720 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. The important ones to keep are the "Allegiance" ones. Otherwise, it becomes unneeded clutter, to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no intellectual consistency to this policy of removing them. It seems personal opinion rather than anything of an educational perspective. Alas it is also doing a dis-service to phalerists and their studies that this page will attract. Saying others profiles dont have them also lacks intellectual or academic rigour. Maybe they should be added to all the German Generals, especially those mentioned above? With my phalerist background, I am more than happy to take on the task. :) DarthZealous 11.45am 31 October 2017 AEST
I could only see the manual saying that they should not be used in headings? The 'consenus' is limited to two users and it is more personal opinion, which is at odds with other biographical entries that enjoy more traffic. DarthZealous 3.11pm 31 October 2017 (AEST)
It's not okay for you to insert these flags over the objections of two editors.Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons is the relevant part of the Manual of Style. Flags should not be added purely for decoration; they need to serve an encyclopedic purpose. Words are preferred over flags. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In addition one can argue that flags lead to option of opinion as to which are significant to include and which are not; also, the argument that Nazi Awards in particular, should not be unnecessarily glorified. I have seen these arguments come up before as made by other editors; and the fact that the other bios mentioned do not include them shows a general consensus for how and when flags are to be used in these articles. As stated, they are "relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality". Kierzek (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Those arguments would result in a fail in a essay, as they lack both intellectual rigour and an interest in the historical facts, which is telling for 'editors' of what should be a fact based site. The idea that Nazi flags are glorifying anything in this case is lazy debating and says more about any personage offering the opinion and such apologist rhetoric. As I suspected, this has more to do with personal opinion than factual consistency. 8.59am, 1 November 2017 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthZealous (talk • contribs) 22:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
As is mine, Diannaa. The fact is, if an award is relevant/significant enough to mention, then text is the way to convey the information, with WP:RS citing, to readers. Your opinion DarthZealous is what it is, but it has not been shown how displaying the flags for awards is relevant or a better way to convey information to a reader than by cited text. Kierzek (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Separately, I reverted to the prior version, with fewer awards. Listing campaign medals, commemorative awards, etc. is excessive, in my opinion. I kept the citations to the awards that were previously uncited. As can be seen in this diff, we are back to the same listing of awards, but now with citations added. Plus some minor changes, such as combining citations and removing which sequential number the Oak Leaves were. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with trimming the list of awards back down to a more reasonable size and support your edit. Not sure about leaving the Wound Badge in though; didn't just about everybody get one of these? (only partially kidding.) — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Why use the term "Nazi commander" instead of "Military commander" or "Reichwehr/Wehrmacht commander" ? This field isn't just black or white. There's plenty of light gray, gray and dark gray as well. But if there was one group within the Third Reich who actually did oppose Hitler, they were in fact found among the highest Wehrmacht officers. They never really liked Corporal Hitler, but they had been benefited through (from summer of 1934) the growing size of the army. A "Nazi commander" is sooner a Gruppernfuhrer in the Waffen-SS. In this case, Erich von Manstein, doubtlessly was a military man (but as soon as he came home, he shifted to civilian cloths (ref)Guido Knopp, Hitlers Warriors (Swedish "Hitlers Krigare, ISBN 91-89442-27-2) p.155(/ref) rather than a "Nazi commander". He shot captured so called "Political Officers" of the Red Army, counting them as civilians in arms. (These wore often uniform, but not always. Their purpose , I assume, was to report to the Kremlin, if officers and soldiers fought the war from a correct communist way or not... ???) So Stalin disliked him for more than one reason. And in Ukraine 1943, he had to work together with Waffen-SS. But he didn't bomb Rome, he didn't participate in the partial destruction of some 2500 years of culture, that suddenly vanished , due to a war which in Italy had lasted a few months sometime in the middle of the 20th century. (And there was no specific military targets in the Eternal City) Von Manstein dared to oppose Hitler, but was only interested of military matters during work. (Is that a crime for a Field Marshal ?). There were hopes, he would join the "killing Hitler alliance" , but he disapproved of such actions by principles. "Prussian Officer's don't revolt" - but he never revealed the conspiracy either. Something of a neutral man, perhaps. Without his upbringing and experiences, it's be difficult to understand his perspectives and the paths he choose. But he did prove himself as an excellent strategist and Commander. Most certainly not all what he achieved in Russia was kind. But a "Nazi" - no, I don't think so. Boeing720 (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Your opinion is of no value whatsoever - all that matters is what the historical consensus is in the Reliable Sources. End of line.
