Talk:Erich von Manstein/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stepfather's brother: Ernst von Manstein - Convert to Judaism

Following a blog post by Ze'ev Gallili (in Hebrew), (here's the first version of that blog in English) several people, whose parents had been students of the violist and artist Ernst von Manstein wrote in, and this man's astonishing story unrolled.

(My friend) Dr. Rammi Reiner had done research on this person who "passed away" (or as we find out later was murdered) in 1944 and had been reburied in the 1950's in the Jewish cemetery. We see his pictures. We hear his students testifying. We hear about his wife, a convert to Judaism as well. We discover that the man was not considered Jewish by the Nazi laws, but that when the Jews of Wurzburg were rounded up, he came out of his house wearing a Talith and phylacteries saying that he put his fate with that of the Jews, and was taken to the Theresienstadt camp where he perished from hunger and illness. We then hear that none other than Erich von Manstein himself lead a national military burial ceremony .for him, with the casket draped in the Swastika flag, in a Nazi war cemetery!

When Reiner came to Wurzburg he was shown the Jewish graveyard and the tombstone of Ernst von Manstein (called Abraham son of Abraham) and tried to follow the strange story. He only succeeded in understanding bits and pieces, including his long path to Judaism (The Jewish faith tries to deter people from becoming officially Jewish) and could not find the connection to Erich. But following the publication a few years ago, people wrote in:

My father's friend studied music by him... Lewinski was named after a village in Pomerania Poland and was not Jewish, but it got people talking that perhaps he was. The general was removed from his duties due to fights with Hitler, and so had time to lead the full military ceremony, with SS officers to his side.

My father was his closest student. My father studied by him. Here is Hebrew calligraphic art that he sent our family. We own two magnificent drawings by him.

His wife Franziska's tombstone of 1941 in the Jewish graveyard was discovered as well.

The rabbi of Wurzburg sent an image of him playing in a Jewish string quartet.

84-year-old Simon Greenbaum told of his visit in 1953 to his mother's tomb in the graveyard where he met the president of the Jewish community who was a survivor of Theresienstadt, was close to Ernst, and attested to Ernst's end, and to his connection to Erich. The von Manstein family were vehemently against the moving of the grave to the Jewish cemetery but lost the case in court.

According to Gallili, Erich von Manstein despite all said, was of Jewish ancestry, new about it and openly told about it, but nonetheless, held antisemitic views and spoke them. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now found a few discrepancies with these testimonies about the exact connection to Erich, and the date when Ernst was exhumed (According to Yad Vashem it was in the 1960's. Yad Vashem also skips the story of the Talit and Tefilin, and according to several editors on Geni.com his stepfather's name was Ernst, so this Ernst was not the stepfather's brother. Our Ernst definitely was not Erich's stepfather, since Erich's stepmother was Hedwiga and not Franziska. hmmm... פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but none of the above is of any use to Wikipedia, as blogs and personal testimonies are not considered to be reliable sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Crimea Shield

The Crimea Shield on its own may not have been a major award. But what I wrote in the article was the Golden version, though. Only two gold Crimea Shields were made, and Manstein was one of the two recipients. Seems major enough for it to be added. I made a separate section on the CS article on this, and thoroughly sourced it. Torpilorul (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary and very doubtful

Quote "Germany's fortunes in the war began to take an unfavourable turn later in 1942, especially in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad,... " - so this isn't about the article person, but this statement isn't quite true, is it ? Yes - Stalingrad wasn't a fortunate even for Nazigermany, but Stalingrad is more of a symbol of the turning point than actual. Although von Manstein possibly thought some kind of victory could be achieved in Russia as late as a few months before his dismissal, it is more than difficult to understand how. Especially in the light of USSR's military production far far away in Siberia. No - but the main crush to the "great idea" of Germany invading the Soviet Union came already in December 1941, the so called Battle of Moscow. That was when Nazigermany's firm trust in a fast victory vanished. After Moscow Germany managed to assemble yet another summer offensive - but with very limited goal compared to the year before. But it was already apparent that "Germany's fortunes" ended at Moscow 1941. Again Stalingrad was more of a symbol. (Also including not so few traces of later Stalinist history falsifications. Not at least due to the name of the city.) In the light of this, and as the quote not really has a bearing on the person the article is about, I propose: either change or delete at least the beginning of the quote in question.
Possibly to "Germany's initial fortunes in the war were long gone, especially in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad,... "
It's the idea of "just everything changed at Stalingrad" I disapprove of, nothing else. Boeing720 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I have to disagree. Historians have been describing the Battle of Stalingrad as a major turning point in the war ever since it happened. I don't see any reason why we should downplay that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not about downplaying , but it has no bearing on this article. And Moscow was "when the war began to take an unfavourable turn" for Germany. Have a look in Isaac Deutcher's "Stalin". (The original work on Stalin, which revealed just everything on Stalin a long time before Chrustov.)

To begin with, the reason Tsaritsyn was changed into Stalingrad, was that Stain had fought some battles there together with Voroshilov (compared to Trotsky's part in the Civil War rather modest contributions).

Stalinism went so deep down, also in our culture (only Churchill realis4ed that), that we all were (in a way) historically fooled by him. Who spread the legends of Stalingrad ? Certainly not Hitler. It suited Stalin extremely well, that it was in (the largest) city that wore his name, which has become so indeed very symbolic for Russia's victory. Don't get me wrong. It was a huge battle. But as a turning point just symbolic for how far Hitler reached, during this the second and limited campaign. It remain as a symbol of a turning point, yes. But thanks to Stalin mainly.

I only suggest a minimal change, as Nazigermany's fortunes didn't begin to change at Stalingrad. Boeing720 (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Also please see the last 9 lines here [[1]] written by Admiral Kurt Assmann. Popular historical authors too often focus on the one event they have chosen to write about, leaving out the military strategic overview.

As with very much else regarding Stalin, it was circumstances as well. I don't think Stalin had the Battle of Stalingrad in mind before July-August 1942. But afterwards it suited Stalin very well, to put that battle as "THE" turning point. But all I'm saying is, that Moscow was a turning point too and Nazigermany's fortunes had began to end already there.

By the way, Isaac Deutscher was an outspoken Marxist, but not a Marxist-Leninist and indeed not a Stalinist. I've read quite a lot on Stalin, but no other author explain Stalin equally well, I think. Like a bit more "from within". Boeing720 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Stalingrad was not a turning point, but does the article really claim it was? The sentence you don't like mainly says that the battle was catastrophic. It was. The sentence also says that Germany had seriously started losing by late 1942 and that Stalingrad was a notable, salient example ("especially") illustrating this general development. Isn't this true as well? I'm unable to see anything wrong with the language currently in this section. Damvile (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It was sooner the opposite I meant. Stalingrad was/still is a huge symbolic turning point (of how far the German armies came into Russia). (Spiced though, through circumstances and by Stalin) But Moscow was a turning point of when the Red Army could defeat the Germans. And indeed - the end of the idea of a new fast German victory on land (like Poland and France). Neither has much with this article to do, I agree with you there. I just think this quote:

"Germany's fortunes in the war began to take an unfavourable turn later in 1942, especially in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad,... "

The good prose aside, not really is an optimal statement, as it is wrong. At least in the first part. As Germany indeed had trampled on a devastating mine already at Moscow. It would be preferable if this was adjusted by someone who master great prose. My suggestion is:

"Germany's initial fortunes in the war were long gone, especially after the catastrophic Battles of Stalingrad, where von Manstein commanded a failed relief effort ("Operation Winter Storm") in December. Later known as the "backhand blow", von Manstein's counteroffensive in the Third Battle of Kharkov (February–March ... " , you can read it in the lead. Boeing720 (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)