Talk:Trial of Erich von Manstein

Comments

Nice work with this article. I know it's not always great form to suggest material for others to add, but here goes! I think that the article would benefit from some background on what von Manstein did after the war (eg, was he in a POW facility of some kind), more material on how the prosecution case against him unfolded (the article describes von Manstein's defence, but not how the prosecution proved their case) and material on how the trial is seen by modern historians; since the myth of the 'clean Wehrmacht' was first popped in the 1980s there seems to have been something of a reevaluation of von Manstein, which has accelerated in recent years. The statement that Churchill placed pressure on the British Government to release von Manstein is also a bit odd given that he was the head of the government at the time! Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback, Nick-D. I have a pretty scathing biography here by Benoît Lemay that I will use later to get the rest of the story fleshed out once I get the main article up to GA. Of course anyone with access to additional resources is welcome to add/change stuff in the meantime. -- Dianna (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Status

I think this article could pass for a GA status. Should I nominate it? Jonas Vinther (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay; I can help. The books used are still available at my library. The lead is too short and we need a bit more background material. I will bring home the books tomorrow (Lemay and Melvin are the two available locally) and get started on GA prep. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the improvements and nominated for GA. It's probably better if I do it as I am the primary author of the page. Please feel free to help out if you like. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, friend. I will add an emotional and important quote regarding Manstein's involvement with the Einzatsgruppen very soon. Actually, I intend to add it right after I saved this edit. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The quote has been added. Under "Defence" section. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have amended your addition and moved it to a better spot. Please don't make value judgements by using words such as "infamous", as such terms do not adhere to WP:NPOV. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trial of Erich von Manstein/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 05:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that this article requires additional work. The Defence section is all too brief, with only broad-stroke summations (compared to very detailed accusations under Trial and Prosectution). Were certain charges absolutely refuted on the facts, or just on general grounds related to operational responsibilty? Shouldn't there be (at least) a separate Judgment section, where the Court's findings are detailed in the same manner and length as the Trial section? There should also be a more detailed explanation of Churchill's position in this. Why was he moved to not only lobby on behalf of von Manstein, but to also contribute to his defense? How did the "conduct of the trial" result in partial responsibility "for creating the legend of a "clean" Wehrmacht"? It sounds like they threw the book at von Manstein...and the Wehrmacht, with charge after charge of terrible and criminal deeds. Did the prosecution botch the case? Did von Manstein mount an overwhelmingly superior defense? Were the accusations simply proven to be untrue or manufactured by the Soviets? In my opinion, too many loose ends to rate this as GA. Gulbenk (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added some more material to the defence section and added some material on Collingwood's summation. Material on Churchill's involvement is already covered: He believed prosecuting German generals would interfere with the reconciliation process with West Germany. Some of your questions will have to remain unanswered, as the available sources do not cover these points. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for that information, and for your work on this article. As it stands, this is an unbalanced article with structural flaws, written with a seemingly naive understanding of the terminology and procedure (which are both foreign to some of us, and distant in time). Somewhere, there must be a detailed recitation of the Court's findings, listing the rationale (point-by-point) for their verdict (just as there was a point-by-point recitation of the charges). If that is not included, we are left with a mystery and a very prejudicial view of the proceedings. Prosecution arguments should be given roughly the same weight as the defense (defence in the UK). The verdict should be roughly the same form and length as the charges. One can get away with less, certainly, but the end product is an okay article, not a Good Article. Gulbenk (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66:@Diannaa: Just checking in on the status of this review as it has been nearly a month since it has been touched. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I am still interested in proceeding, whenever Sturmvogel has the time. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd completely forgotten about this. I'll look it over momentarily. Gulbenk, you make some good points, but everything depends on the coverage available in the sources. Barring somebody actually reproducing the text of the verdict, we probably won't have the ability to balance things in the manner that you'd prefer. But that's more of an issue for a hypothetical ACR or FAC than GA where the article has to only reasonably completely cover the subject.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• External links good, image appropriately licensed.
• Is there a post-war picture of him available?
• There are a couple of overlinks that need to be gotten rid of.
• Two of the three modern biographies of Manstein have been referenced, but what of Stein's Janus Head? I have this and it has a pretty significant amount of coverage of the charges and the defense. I'm no hurry to close this and I think that this is a pretty key source for this article so I'm willing to wait while you get a copy.
• Add links to the trial records to a further reading or external links section.
• Probably should change the introductory sentence to read a commander in the Heer, not of the Wehrmacht, which was the umbrella term for all of the German armed services except the SS. That's all I see on a first pass, I'll try to do another before the end of the month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead with the suggested changes. Regarding photos, we have 12 Bundesarchiv photos on the Commons but all of them date from WWII. I am not in a position to buy the suggested book, which would be $40 Canadian for a used copy and $70 for a new copy. It's not available on inter-library loan. If you think it's critical for this article, I will withdraw the nomination and let someone else tackle it, someone who already owns the book. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a shame because the book has a couple of hundred pages of material on the trial, including excerpts from the trial transcripts. Otherwise I'd have just copied the material from my copy and sent them to you. So you should probably go ahead and withdraw the nom then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Withdrawn. Thanks very much for your help. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

For clarification I must mention that I at the 25 July 2014 made a request for a Good Reading review. I've never done so before, and hence I turned myself to an (other) administrator. It was very clumsy done, by not knowing that it already had been rewied once before. Not that long time ago. It was especially stupid of me since I had used its talk-page. I'm not quite aware of how it came on Yor desk, Sturmvogel. But I strongly want to point out that I feel guilty for Diannaa and other contributers. Of cource more time should have passed prior of a new review. My request was made with the best intension. I even thought that since I have had long discussions with Diannaa regarding the Erich von Manstein article, that I ought to be suitable in order to make such a request, due to impartiality (given our long previous discussion). I of course also believed the article to be of good reading status. I still think that, if comparing with quite a few good reading articles. I'm not arguing anything about the outcome of the review, but I'm truely sorry for my clumsyness in this matter. Boeing720 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(OtherReason for his release

Stalin was found dead in March 1953, this soon led to the USSR release of Hitler's last promoted Field Marshal, Friedrich Paulus (though first in October). But didn't the death of Stalin had an affect on von Manstein's release ? Something went wrong here, please se below. Sorry Boeing720 (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(Other) reasons for his release ?

Stalin was found dead in March 1953 [murder cannot be entirelly ruled out], this soon led to the USSR release of Hitler's last promoted Field Marshal, Friedrich Paulus (though first in October). But didn't the death of Stalin had an affect on von Manstein's release aswell ? If not else, so to test the USSR response. In May 1953 the situation in USSR still was rather unknown (to the west), so it was "a good point of time" in that sence. Also his points of views in a "Communist attempt to invade western Europe- scenario" was of great interest to NATO, that had far less (conventional) military potential (in Europe, atleast) at that time. And he was a master of how to do the best of such situations. (1953 was still before H-bombs could be launched with intercontinental missiles) Boeing720 (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Available sources don't show any connection between Stalin's death and Manstein's release. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Similar subject - Trial of Wehrmacht

I don't know the synthax to reach other Wikipedias, but I found this article at German Wikipedia (extern full URL) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prozess_Oberkommando_der_Wehrmacht It makes me also wonder why von Manstein wasn't among those German generals ? Although in German, I find it rather understanable, atleast the table of prosecuted and their punishments. I found High Command Trial and War crimes of the Wehrmacht, but both needs improvements. The latter is much of a blur. Boeing720 (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

GA2?

Diannaa, if you want, I can review this article for GA-status? I understand you were unsatisfied with the last one? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No thanks Jonas. Sturmvogel made it clear in his review that there was a lot of information missing, and I can't afford to buy the suggested book. It's fine at B-class. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath

Donald Bloxham is describing in detail the pressure of German Government and ignorant military etablishment to free Manstein. (Punishing German Soldiers during the Cold War: The Case of Erich von Manstein. in Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 33, 1999 - Issue 4

Daniel Cowling is describing the domestic reception of the trial and the reductions of the punishment. (Journal of Contemporary History)

--5glogger (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Overreliance on single source

Hello all. I just wanted to raise attention to this article over-relying on a single source, Melvin, for much of its body text. 30 of the 48 footnote citations belong to this single source, and entire sections (e.g. "prosecution") rely exclusively on Melvin as a source. If other contributors could add other sources to corroborate events I think it would improve the article. 47.218.254.131 (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)